From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Oct 1 15:39:32 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 07:39:32 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] The Angel of History Message-ID: In this 1994 interview with Eric Hobsbawm, Michael Ignatieff tries to get Hobsbawm to take the position that no "radiant future" could ever have justified Stalin's "liquidation of the kulaks" and the Holodomor. Hobsbawm has three responses. a) It's not a historical question; it's a purely academic one (nice distinction!). The thing about history that a historian always remembers is that the people doing it don't actually know how it all turns out. b) Why do people never ask if World War II was "worth it", seeing as how ten times as many people died in the war as died in the camps or even would have died in the camps? (Arno Mayer wonders if Hitler would have even resorted to the "Final Solution" had the Russians simply surrendered.) This is essentially Ulvi's point, although Ulvi sometimes obscures it by indulging in "But what about-ism"). c) Walter Benjamin's angel of history is facing the wrong way. Have a listen at about 15:17. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nnd2Pu9NNPw Now, you might think that c) conradicts a). After all, the Angel of History is facing the wrong way and sees only the desolation and debris created by progress precisely because the Angel, like the people who are doing progress, don't actually know how it is going to turn out. But of course Benjamin assures us that the view of the Angel of History is precisely a synoptic one; like a man born blind and deaf who is asked to describe an elephant on a turntable as it rotates. It turns out that when we do this experiment with the congenitally blind and deaf, we get a more accurate picture of the elephant than we do with people who can see and hear. David Kellogg From ivan@llaisdy.com Tue Oct 3 01:50:41 2017 From: ivan@llaisdy.com (Ivan Uemlianin) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 09:50:41 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog?= =?utf-8?q?Unit_of_Analysis?= In-Reply-To: <292655362.14209812.1506286698854@mail.yahoo.com> References: <292655362.14209812.1506286698854.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <292655362.14209812.1506286698854@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1bd5cc62-6f89-e7a7-1614-d7fa4e0968d5@llaisdy.com> Dear Sasha I think we are reading Spinoza differently. IMHO, the interaction of relatively active and relatively passive bodies is a central problem in Spinoza's work. It is implicit perhaps in the Ethics, but more to the fore in the TIE. Vygotsky's treatment of the child/learner and the social environment is congruent with this. By "social environment" I mean a body like "?????????? ????????", as in the following (from Thinking and Speech): > ?? [???????] ?????? ??????? ?? ????? ????????, ???????? ??? > ????????????? ? ?????? ??? ? ??????? ???? ?????????? ???????? ????. > ????? ??????, ??????? ?? ??????? ????? ????, > ?? ????????? ??????? ???? ?????????? ??? ????????. > > He [the child] only follows the speech of adults, adopting thespecific > meanings of words, meanings already established and given to him in > their finished form. Simply stated, the child does not create his > speech, but he adopts the ready-made speech of the adults around him. (unsurprisingly, ????????? is translated as "learn" in the English Collected Works translation. IMHO adopt or imitate is more accurate.) Granted, "social environment" is more abstract than "surrounding adults". As for "the intellect" in E1d4. IIRC Spinoza does not define this term anywhere in the Ethics. When I am back I'll be sketching out my undertanding of Spinoza as a foundation for other work. Best wishes Ivan On 24/09/17 21:58, Alexander Surmava wrote: > The fourth post on the topic. Reply to Ivan > The Russian translation of the discussion is duplicated here: > https://www.facebook.com/groups/564569043580624/permalink/1447798525257667/ > > > Dear Sasha > > Dear Ivan! > > ??????? ????! > > > Thank you for your bilingual text! And thank you for sparing me the > "academic courtesy" :) > > I will answer your comments with pleasure. > And I'll start by asking you to clarify once again - what, at least > slightly resembling Spinoza's central ideas, did you find in Vygotsky? > > ? ????????????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?????????. > ? ????? ????? ? ????, ??? ??????? ???? ???????? ? ???, ???? ?? > ????????? ???????????? ??????????? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ? ??????????? > > Again I agree with most but not all of your email, and again the > disagreement is where you touch on Vygotsky. > > And let's agree that we will not consider simple verbal declarations > of adherence to Spinozism. Not because we do not believe in their > sincerity, but because science does not consist of naked intentions. > Science has to produce at least some result, hasn't it? :-) > > ? ????? ???????????, ??? ??????? ????????? ?????????? ? ?????????????? > ?????????? ?? ????????????? ?? ?????. ?? ??????, ??? ?? ????? ? ?? > ???????????, ? ??????, ??? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ?????????. ????? > ?????? ?????????? ???? ?? ????????? ?????????. ?? ??? ??? :-) > I don't think Vygotsky completed this project, perhaps he only started > it off, to be continued by Leontiev, Ilyenkov and others. My defensive > position is merely that he was not barking up the wrong tree. > > The fact that Vygotsky did not finish his project is something > absolutely indisputable. Therefore, we have to evaluate not a > holistic, concrete theoretical system, which he simply did not have > time to create, but his first, necessarily the most abstract steps. > Essentially, it is necessary to evaluate the "germ cell" of his > theory, of course, if it was found at all. > At the same time, again, we will judge not by the declarations of > Leontyev and Ilyenkov, but by the content of their theorizing. > I know, of course, that Leontiev always insisted publicly that he and > Vygotsky had a single theoretical approach, differing only in the > level of abstractness and concreteness. But I am convinced that > Leontiev's statements were motivated exclusively by political reasons. > This is sad, but from the point of view of the "germ cell" one can not > speak about Vygotsky's theory, in principle, for he could not > distinguish this cell (he did not have enough time for that). > Of course, I can make mistakes in this assessment, and you or someone > else knows what should be considered as the "germ cell" of Vygotsky's > theory. In this case, I will be glad to make it known and amend my > position. If, of course, the theoretical analysis confirms that the > proposed category is suitable for the role assigned to it. > For Ilyenkov, the role of such a "germ cell" is played by an > object-oriented action, it is also an "action copying the form of an > object", it is also ?predmetnaya deyatelnost?. Leontiev was close to > the same understanding of the "germ cell", exploring in detail the > so-called "perceptual actions, plastically resembling the form of an > object". > As far as I know Vygotsky hadn?t nothing even remotely similar to the > idea of activity understood in Spinozian way. Although the word > "activity" he used often enough. But one thing is a WORD, and quite > another is the concept behind it, an understanding of the essence of > the matter. One thing is "word" and quite another "concept." > It must be admitted, however, that both Ilyenkov and Leontiev also did > not go very far from the original "germ cell" to the concrete theory. > Their concepts are also filled with unresolved contradictions. But I > stress, from their position with all their contradictions, there is a > way forward, not to a dead end. > An analysis of the contradictions between Leontiev and Ilyenkov, I am > ready to discuss in further reports. > > ??, ??? ????????? ?? ???????? ???? ?????? - ????? ?????????? > ??????????. ?????? ????????? ??? ?????????? ?? ?????????, ?????????? > ????????????? ???????, ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ???????, ? ?? > ??????, ?????????? ????? ??????????? ????. > ??-???????? ????????? ?????????? ?????? ???????????? ??????? ??????, > ???????, ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???????. (???? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?? > ?????, ??, ??? ?? ????????, ?? ?????? ?? ???????? ????? ? ?????????.) > ?? ????, ??? ????????? ?????????? ????????????? ? ???????? ????? > ???????? ????? ????? ?????? ? ???, ???????? ?? ?????? > ?????????-????????? ?????????? ???????????? ? ????????? ??? ??????, > ??? ??? ???????? ?? ????????????? ??????????. ??? ???? ?????-????, > ????? ?????? ?? ?? ??????????? ????????? ? ?????????, ? ?? ?????????? > ?? ????????????????. > ???, ??????????, ????????, ??? ???????? ???????? ?????? ????????? ?? > ???, ??? ? ??? ? ????????? ??? ?????? ????????????? ??????, > ????????????? ?????? ??????? ?????????????-????????????. ?? ? ???????, > ??? ??? ????????? ????????? ?????????????? ????????????? ????????????? > ?????????. > ? ???????, ??? ??? ?? ????????, ?? ? ????? ?????? ???????????? > ????????? ? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ???????? ? ????????, ??? ???????? > ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? (?? ?????). > ???????, ? ?? ????????, ??? ???? ?????????, ? ??? ???? ??? ????-?? ??? > ???????? ? ??? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???????????? ?????????? ?????? > ??????????. ? ????? ??????, ???? ??? ?????? ???????? ? ???? ???????. > ???? ???????, ????????????? ?????? ??????????, ??? ?????? ????????? > ???????? ??? ?????????? ?? ????. > ??? ????????? ????? ????????? ???????? ? ??????????-?????????? > ????????, ??? ?? ????????? ?? ????? ?????????, ??? ?? ?????????? > ????????????. ???????? ?????? ? ?????? ?? ????????? ????????, > ?????????? ???????? ???????? ??? ?????????? ????????????? ????????, > ??????????? ?????????????? ????? ?????????. > ? ??????????, ????????? ??? ???????? ??? ?????? ???? ????????? > ???????? ?? ??? ?????????? ????????????. ???? ????? ?????????????? ??? > ???????????? ??, ??????????, ??????????? ?????????? ?????. ?? ???? > ???? ?????, ? ?????? ?????? ? ??????? ?? ??? ???????, ????????? > ???????? ????. ???? ???? ??????? ? ?????? ?????? ?????????. > ????, ???????, ????????, ??? ? ????????, ? ???????? ???? ?? ????? > ?????? ???????????? ?? ???????? ??????????? ???????? ? ?????????? > ??????. ?? ????????? ???? ????????? ?? ??????? ??????????????. ?? ?? > ?? ????????????, ??? ??????? ???????? ???? ???? ??????. > ?????? ???????????? ????????? ? ????????? ? ????? ???????? ? > ?????????? ??????????. > As I've said, I think his treatment of the child's socialisation is > fully Spinozan and materialist. e.g., the way the activity of the > social environment is transmitted to the child. Surely word meaning > is treated here (e.g. in Thinking and Speech) as a reflection of > activity. > > If we are trying to understand how the child's psyche (activity) > arises and develops, we must consider his/her own object oriented > activity, rather than the activity of the "social environment". For > from the point of view, from the position of the child, all this stuff > is not an activity at all, because that is not HIS/HERE activity, but > some external circumstances, external stimuli. The child himself in > such a scheme is regarded as something totally passive. But a child > can not be alive and at the same time not active, because > object-oriented activity is life. Therefore, the child's actual > development always depends not on external, even if not physical, but > social impacts on him, but on the activity of the child himself. > Meanwhile, about the activity of the child himself, about an "action > copying the form of an object", Vygotsky did not say a single word. > Where and in what do you see Spinozism here? > At the same time, how did you see the reflection of activity in the > child's learning of the meanings of words? What real activity leads > the child's thinking from concept-heap to concept-complex and from > concept-complex to scientific concept? And where does Vygotsky have > said at least a single word on this subject? > Moreover, Vygotsky's proposed scheme for the development of the > concept is anything, only not the real logic of growth and development > of concepts, development of understanding. > However, this topic should not be dealt with between the case, because > it is too serious. Therefore, we will return to it a little later. > > ???? ?? ???????? ?????? ??? ????????? ? ??????????? ??????? > (????????????) ???????, ?? ?????? ????????????? ??? ??????????? > ?????????? ????????????, ? ?? ???????????? ???????????? ??????????, > ??? ??????????? ??????. ??? ? ????? ??????, ? ??????? ???????, ??? ??? > ?? ????????????, ?? ??? ????????????, ?? ????? ??????? ??????????????, > ??????? ???????. ??? ?? ??????? ? ????? ????? ??????????????? ??? > ????? ?????????. ?? ????????? ????????? ???????, ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?? > ?????, ? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ?????????????? ?????-?? ??????? > ?? ??? ????????, ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ???? > ???????????, ? ?? ???????????? ?????? ???????. ????? ???, ? > ???????????? ?????? ???????, ??? ???????? ???????? ?? ????? ????????, > ? ?????????? ?? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????. > ??? ? ? ??? ????? ?? ???????????? ?????????? > ??????, ????? ??????? ?? ????????? ????????? ???????????? ? ???????? > ???????? ???????? ????? ????? ???????????? ????????? ???????? ??????? > ?? ???????-???? ? ???????-????????? ? ?? ???????-????????? ? ???????? > ???????? ? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ? ??????????? > ??? ?????, ??? ???? ?????? ??? ????????? ????? ???????? ???????, > ???????????? ?????????, ???????? ??? ??????, ?????? ?? ???????? > ??????? ????? ? ???????? ?????? ???????, ???????? ?????????. > ???????, ? ???? ????, ?? ??????? ???????? ??????, ??? ??? ??????? > ????????. ? ??????, ?? ???????? ? ??? ??????? ???????. > The activity of the social environment (including its verbal > behaviour) is adopted by the child. > > If "the activity of the social environment" (including its verbal > behavior)"is only perceived by the child, then, as we said above, > there is no activity of the child at all, and there is activity of > someone else, which means that the child does not develop in this > situation. Similarly, the student does not develops while the teacher > is generating a flood of activities if the student himself is asleep, > or directs his activity at an exciting game on his smartphone. > Once again, what does Spinoza and Spinozism have to do with it? > > ???? ????????????? ?????????? ?????? (??????? ?? ?????????? > ??????????) ????? ???? ?????????????? ????????, ??, ??? ?? ??? ??????? > ????, ????? ??? ???????????? ???????, ? ???? ???????????? ????-?? > ???????, ? ?????? ??????? ? ????? ???????? ?? ???????????, ??? ?? > ??????????? ??????, ? ?? ????? ??? ??????? is generating a flood of > activities???? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ????, ??? ?????????? ???? > ???????????? ?? ????????????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????. > ??? ???, ??? ??? ??? ??????? ? ?????????? > Vygotsky was an experimental psychologistand his experiments, and his > critique of Piaget's & others' experiments, aim to show the practical > ways that word meaning is created and transmitted. > > An experiment without theory is blind and deaf to any facts. So the > criticism of the psychologist-experimenter is no different from > criticism of the scientist-theorist. And with his theory of the > development of meanings of words that he identified with the > development of thinking as such, Vygotsky came to a complete > standstill. Below we will show this by analysing the results of the > "Uzbek" experiment and analysis of the so-called methodology of > Vygotsky-Sakharov. > > ??????????? ??? ?????? ???? ? ???? ? ????? ??????. ??????? ??????? > ?????????-???????????????? ????? ?? ?????????? ?? ??????? > ???????-?????????. ? ?? ????? ??????? ???????? ???????? ????, ??????? > ?? ??????????? ? ????????? ???????? ??? ????????, ????????? ????? ? > ?????? ?????. ???? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ??????? ??????????? ???????????? > ???????????? ? ??????? ??? ?????????? ???????? ??????????-????????. > The problem of the Ideal --- how Thinking and Extension relate --- is > there in Spinoza. For all his undoubted Monism and materialism this > problem is smudged over in his definition of the Attributes in E1d4: > > Ivan, with all due respect I can not agree with your conclusion that > the problem of the relation of ?Thinking? to ?Extention? is identical > with the problem of the nature of Ideal or the problem of the nature > of Mind. And even more I can?t agree with your paradoxical statement > that with ?undoubted monism and materialism?, one can preserve some > kind of ambiguous or blurred attitude to this problem. > Spinoza (and Ilyenkov) had a particular though a crystal clear and > unambiguous view at this matter - the concept of the Ideal (the > concept of Mind) is not synonymous with the Cartesian > disembodied-thinking substance, not a synonym for the Lockean and > positivistic "mental" plan. The Cartesian psychophysical problem has > no solution in principle, for it is completely false. ?Thinking? and > ?Extension? do not interact in any way, for they do not exist in the > Nature as such. There is simply no senseless extension. At least from > the moment when the Nature with the necessity inherent in its nature > generates living beings. In the Nature, there is no incorporeal > thinking and can not be NEVER. > A living, active subject must interact with the object of his living > vital activity that opposes him. Such interaction can theoretically be > understood as life and/or thinking. The ideal is either a living form > of such a living movement (in accordance with the form of an object) > or the same form of movement, but frozen in the form of the natural > instrument, the organic body of living beings, or the cultural > instrument of this activity, primarily tools of labor. So the form, > nature of the wood is represented either in the form of a live > movement of an experienced woodcutter or carpenter, or in the form of > their tools - an ax, a cleaver, a plane, etc. > And only secondarily the activity crystallizes in the form of verbal > signs denoting certain properties of wood. > However, I must stop here, for I understand that all that is said here > can hardly be understood, outside the context of a more thorough > discussion of the nature of the category of ideality and its > understanding in the logic of Marx. To stop in order to return to the > topic later and more fundamentally. > > ????, ??? ???? ???????, ?? ???? ??????????? ? ????? ??????? ? ???, ??? > ???????? ????????? ?????????? ? ??????????????? ???????????? ???????? > ??????? ??????????, ???????? ??????? ????????. ? ??? ????? ? ????? > ?????????????? ????????????, ??? ??? ??????????? ??????? ? > ????????????, ????? ????????? ????? ????????????? ??? ????????? > ????????? ? ???? ????????. > ??????? (? ????????) ???????? ? ???? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ? > ??????????????? ??????? ? ??????? ?????????? (??????? ????????) ?? > ??????? ????????????? ??????????-???????? ??????????, ?? ??????? > ??????????? ? ??????????????? ????????????? ?????. ????????????? > ??????????????? ???????? ?? ????? ??????? ? ????????, ??? ?????????? > ????? ??????????. ???????? ? ????????????? ?? ??????????????? ?????, > ??? ?? ?????????? ? ??????? ??? ???????. ????????????? ????????????? ? > ???? ?????? ???. ?? ??????? ???? ??????? ? ???? ???????, ????? ??????? > ? ??????????????, ?????????? ? ?? ???????, ????????? ????? ???????. > ???????????? ?? ???????? ? ??????? ??? ? ???? ?? ????? ???????. > ??????????????? ??, ?????? ??????????, ?????, ?????????? ??????? ? > ?????????????? ??? ????????? ??? ?????????????????. ????? > ?????????????? ???? ? ?????, ? ????????. ????????? ?? ???? ???? ????? > ????? ?????? ?????? ???????? (?? ????? ????????), ???? ??? ?? ?????, > ????????? ? ????? ????????????? ??????, ????????????? ???? ????? > ???????, ???? ??????????? ?????? ???? ????????????, ?????? ????? ? > ?????? ?????. ??? ?????, ??????? ????????? ???????????? ???? ? ????? > ?????? ???????? ???????? ????????? ??? ????????, ???? ? ????? ?? > ?????? ? ??????, ??????, ??????? ? ?.?. ? ?????? ???????? ? ???? > ????????? ??????, ???????????? ?? ??? ???? ???????? ?????????. > ???????, ? ????? ? ???????? ????????????, ??? ???????, ??? ??? > ????????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??????, ??? ????????? ????? > ?????????????? ????????? ? ??????? ????????? ??????????? ? ?? > ????????? ? ?????? ??????. ???????????? ??? ????, ????? ????????? ? > ???? ??????? ? ????? ??????????????. > SPINOZA: E1 d4: By attribute, I mean that which *the intellect* > perceives as constituting the essence of substance. > > Spinoz's definition of the "attribute" is absolutely accurate and > transparent, although it was expressed in a specific language of the > XVII century. The opposition of Thinking and Extantion as two > attributes of the Substance in the language of Marx, are identical to > the opposition of the ideal and the material. Both the ideal and the > material are not something independent from each other, but are > positing each other definitions of world matter and its movement, > Nature as a whole, the material Universe. > > ???????????? ????????? ?????????? ????????? ????? ? ?????????, ???? ? > ???????? ?? ????????????? ????? XVII ????. ????????????????? ???????? > ? ?????????? ??? ???? */?????????/* ?????????? ?? ????? ??????????? > ?????????, ?? ????? ?????? */???????????? ????????????????? ?????????? > ? ?????????????/*. ? ?????????, ? ???????????? ?? ??????????? ???? ?? > ????? ????????, ?? ?????????? ???? ????? ??????????? ??????? ???????, > ?? ????????, ??????? ? ?????, ???????????? ?????????. > Whichintellect? > > You are asking whose intellect Spinoza means in his definition of > "attribute"? > I think that the intellect of coming to a knowledge, active subject. > > ?? ??????????? ? ???? ?????????? ??????? ??????? ? ????? ????????? > ??????????? > ?????, ??? ?? ?????????? ??????????, ??????????? ????????. > Vygotksy's psychology might have shown the way forward for a > psychology (& even a philosophy of mind) that does without Thinking > (in Spinoza's sense, of a distinct Attribute of Substance) altogether, > and has only Extension and "imaginatio" (as in E2 p17). > > To follow your advice and try to do without Mind or Thinking (in the > Spinozian sense, as a special attribute of The Substance) would mean, > in Spinoza's style, to think of Nature or God in an imperfect way, as > something lifeless and meaningless. Such a path in philosophy is not > something new. This is the path of vulgar materialism of Lametrie and > Kabanis, and from more modern characters - the path of Pavlov, > behaviorists, adepts of "Cognitive science", etc. > However, it is impossible to be a consistent vulgar materialist, not > allowing in your system a fraction of no less vulgar idealism. > At the same Pavlov vulgar idealism is presented in the form of > "reflexes of the goal," "reflexes of freedom." In your discourse, > vulgar idealism is seen - in the proposal to replace the theoretically > clear Spinoza-defined thinking as an attribute of the substance to its > own, but much less clearly theoretically articulated concept of > ?imagination?. > > ??????????? ?????? ?????? ? ?????????? ???????? ??? ???????? (? > ???????????? ??????, ??? ??????? ???????? ??????????) ??????? ??, > ?????? ? ????? ???????, ??????? ??????? ??? ???? ????????????? > ???????, ??? ????? ???????????? ? ?????????????. ????? ???? ? > ????????? ?? ???. ??? ???? ??????????? ???????????? ???????, ????????, > ? ?? ????? ??????????? ?????????? ? ???? ???????, ?????????????, > ??????? ?Cognitivescience? ? ??. > ???????, ?????????? ???? ???????????????? ?????????? ?????????????, ?? > ???????? ? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ????? ??????????? ?????????. ? ???? > ?? ??????? ?????????? ???????? ???????????? ? ???? ?????????? ?????, > ?????????? ????????. ? ????? ??????????? ?????????? ???????? > ??????????????? ? ? ??????????? ???????? ???????????? ?????? > ???????????? ???????? */????????/* ??? ???????? ?????????? ?? ??? ??, > ?? ???? ????? ????? ???????????? ???????????????? ??????? ??????????? > - */"/**/imaginatio/**/"./* > Best wishes > > All the best > > ????? ?????? ???????, > Ivan > > Sasha > > ???? > > > ?????? ? ????????? > > > Security Check Required > > > > -- ============================================================ Ivan A. Uemlianin PhD Llaisdy Speech Technology Research and Development ivan@llaisdy.com @llaisdy llaisdy.wordpress.com github.com/llaisdy www.linkedin.com/in/ivanuemlianin festina lente ============================================================ From l-salus@northwestern.edu Fri Oct 6 15:27:21 2017 From: l-salus@northwestern.edu (Laura Salus) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 22:27:21 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] two positions available at Northwestern University Message-ID: <5bc06412cd4b4c808598974657cfa822@chcspmbx05.ads.northwestern.edu> Hello, Northwestern University's School of Education and Social Policy currently has two positions available in the Learning Sciences. I am attaching both job descriptions. Please forward to interested colleagues. Best, ~Laura Laura Salus Executive Assistant to the Dean School of Education and Social Policy l-salus@northwestern.edu 847-491-3828 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Science and Math in Schools Ad - NU SESP.PDF Type: application/pdf Size: 116527 bytes Desc: Science and Math in Schools Ad - NU SESP.PDF Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171006/db368a14/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Ecological Perspectives Ad - NU SESP.PDF Type: application/pdf Size: 115037 bytes Desc: Ecological Perspectives Ad - NU SESP.PDF Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171006/db368a14/attachment-0001.pdf From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Fri Oct 6 15:32:01 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 22:32:01 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: two positions available at Northwestern University In-Reply-To: <5bc06412cd4b4c808598974657cfa822@chcspmbx05.ads.northwestern.edu> References: <5bc06412cd4b4c808598974657cfa822@chcspmbx05.ads.northwestern.edu> Message-ID: <1507329121057.20442@iped.uio.no> thanks for sharing Laura, Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Laura Salus Sent: 07 October 2017 00:27 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] two positions available at Northwestern University Hello, Northwestern University's School of Education and Social Policy currently has two positions available in the Learning Sciences. I am attaching both job descriptions. Please forward to interested colleagues. Best, ~Laura Laura Salus Executive Assistant to the Dean School of Education and Social Policy l-salus@northwestern.edu 847-491-3828 From smago@uga.edu Sat Oct 7 08:31:00 2017 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 15:31:00 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/publishers-seek-removal-millions-papers-researchgate Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate Academic social network accused of infringing copyright on a massive scale Leading publishers are stepping up their fight against ResearchGate by ordering the academic social network to take down papers that they say infringe copyright. The move could see millions of articles removed from the site, as the publishers say up to 40 per cent of papers on ResearchGate are copyrighted. James Milne, a spokesman for the group of five academic publishers, which includes Elsevier, Wiley and Brill, said that the first batch of take-down notices would be sent "imminently". "We're not doing this in any way against the researchers, we're doing this against ResearchGate," he told Times Higher Education. The site was "clearly hosting and happily uploading material that they know they don't have the license or copyrights" to, and was "refusing to work with us to solve that problem", he added. According to a survey of academics released last year, Berlin-based ResearchGate is by some way the world's biggest academic social network, used by about 60 per cent of academics, particularly in the physical and life sciences, and has raised nearly $90 million (?68 million) in funding from investors, according to the website Crunchbase. Publishers are seeing "anecdotal" evidence that the availability of papers on the site is eating into their revenues, said Dr Milne. "We have heard during the subscriptions renewal process that librarians are occasionally referencing ResearchGate as an alternative to resubscribing to journals," he said. He attacked ResearchGate as being "backed by hundreds of millions of dollars [from venture capitalists,] who are seeking to make a profit from what [ResearchGate] do, which is upload copyright infringed material". "They put nothing back into the process for generating and validating and curating all that material," he said. The publisher Elsevier drew a backlash from many academics in 2013 when it told users of Academia.edu, a rival to ResearchGate, to take down papers to which it had rights. Dr Milne stressed that this time, the publishers would not directly send take-down notices to academics. "We will work with ResearchGate on this, not researchers," he said, although the organisation would be communicating "en masse" with academics about how they can share their work properly. But for the publishers, sending out mass take-down notices is not a permanent solution. "That in itself doesn't solve the problem, because every day ResearchGate is uploading more and more material," said Dr Milne, trapping publishers in a "perpetual loop" of having to identify infringing papers. He argued that this would be confusing for researchers, as "one day there's content, and the next day there isn't", he said. Elsevier and the American Chemical Society are therefore also taking ResearchGate to court where they hope to obtain a ruling that would stop ResearchGate "scraping content off the web, uploading it...and asking researchers to claim it" so that infringing material "is not in the public domain", he explained. The court claim would be lodged in Europe, he said. A ResearchGate spokeswoman declined to comment. The company's founder and chief executive, Ijad Madisch, has previously said that he "wouldn't mind" if copyrighted material was removed from the site, as researchers could continue to share papers privately. david.matthews@timeshighereducation.com From mcole@ucsd.edu Sat Oct 7 16:24:51 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 16:24:51 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] position opening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bhatt, Ramesh Date: Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 6:15 AM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] position opening To: "cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org" Hi, The psychology program at the University of Kentucky has an opening for an Assistant Professor in Cognitive Developmental Psychology. Would it be possible to post the enclosed job announcement on your listserv? Thanks, Ramesh ___________________________ Ramesh S. Bhatt, Ph.D. University Research Professor, Psychology Department University of Kentucky Lexington, KY 40506-0044 859-257-6835 _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: University of Kentucky- PSY Assistant Professor in Cognitive Developmental Psychology.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 13594 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171007/24253343/attachment.bin From mcole@ucsd.edu Sat Oct 7 16:25:16 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 16:25:16 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Faculty Positions at University of Alabama In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gilpin, Ansley Date: Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:34 PM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Faculty Positions at University of Alabama To: "cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org" The Psychology Department at the University of Alabama invites applications for open faculty positions for researchers whose work focuses on the study of health psychology, geropsychology, quantitative psychology, and autism. The autism position is part of a cluster hire for 3 senior positions in psychology, communicative disorders, and special education. Women and minority applicants are especially encouraged to apply. Please see https://psychology.ua.edu/about/open-positions for more details. Ansley Gilpin, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Department of Psychology The University of Alabama Box 870348 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Phone 205-348-9903 agilpin@ua.edu | http://atullos.people.ua.edu [image: The University of Alabama] _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Sun Oct 8 04:31:11 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 11:31:11 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <1507462271698.29592@iped.uio.no> That's a complex matter, Peter. Thanks for sharing. I wonder what the views of others are. I am still forming mine, but would like to contribute with another resource to do so, an article from The Guardian on profitable business scientific publishing https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Peter Smagorinsky Sent: 07 October 2017 17:31 To: xmca-l@ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/publishers-seek-removal-millions-papers-researchgate Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate Academic social network accused of infringing copyright on a massive scale Leading publishers are stepping up their fight against ResearchGate by ordering the academic social network to take down papers that they say infringe copyright. The move could see millions of articles removed from the site, as the publishers say up to 40 per cent of papers on ResearchGate are copyrighted. James Milne, a spokesman for the group of five academic publishers, which includes Elsevier, Wiley and Brill, said that the first batch of take-down notices would be sent "imminently". "We're not doing this in any way against the researchers, we're doing this against ResearchGate," he told Times Higher Education. The site was "clearly hosting and happily uploading material that they know they don't have the license or copyrights" to, and was "refusing to work with us to solve that problem", he added. According to a survey of academics released last year, Berlin-based ResearchGate is by some way the world's biggest academic social network, used by about 60 per cent of academics, particularly in the physical and life sciences, and has raised nearly $90 million (?68 million) in funding from investors, according to the website Crunchbase. Publishers are seeing "anecdotal" evidence that the availability of papers on the site is eating into their revenues, said Dr Milne. "We have heard during the subscriptions renewal process that librarians are occasionally referencing ResearchGate as an alternative to resubscribing to journals," he said. He attacked ResearchGate as being "backed by hundreds of millions of dollars [from venture capitalists,] who are seeking to make a profit from what [ResearchGate] do, which is upload copyright infringed material". "They put nothing back into the process for generating and validating and curating all that material," he said. The publisher Elsevier drew a backlash from many academics in 2013 when it told users of Academia.edu, a rival to ResearchGate, to take down papers to which it had rights. Dr Milne stressed that this time, the publishers would not directly send take-down notices to academics. "We will work with ResearchGate on this, not researchers," he said, although the organisation would be communicating "en masse" with academics about how they can share their work properly. But for the publishers, sending out mass take-down notices is not a permanent solution. "That in itself doesn't solve the problem, because every day ResearchGate is uploading more and more material," said Dr Milne, trapping publishers in a "perpetual loop" of having to identify infringing papers. He argued that this would be confusing for researchers, as "one day there's content, and the next day there isn't", he said. Elsevier and the American Chemical Society are therefore also taking ResearchGate to court where they hope to obtain a ruling that would stop ResearchGate "scraping content off the web, uploading it...and asking researchers to claim it" so that infringing material "is not in the public domain", he explained. The court claim would be lodged in Europe, he said. A ResearchGate spokeswoman declined to comment. The company's founder and chief executive, Ijad Madisch, has previously said that he "wouldn't mind" if copyrighted material was removed from the site, as researchers could continue to share papers privately. david.matthews@timeshighereducation.com From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Sun Oct 8 04:31:11 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 11:31:11 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <1507462271698.29592@iped.uio.no> That's a complex matter, Peter. Thanks for sharing. I wonder what the views of others are. I am still forming mine, but would like to contribute with another resource to do so, an article from The Guardian on profitable business scientific publishing https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Peter Smagorinsky Sent: 07 October 2017 17:31 To: xmca-l@ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/publishers-seek-removal-millions-papers-researchgate Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate Academic social network accused of infringing copyright on a massive scale Leading publishers are stepping up their fight against ResearchGate by ordering the academic social network to take down papers that they say infringe copyright. The move could see millions of articles removed from the site, as the publishers say up to 40 per cent of papers on ResearchGate are copyrighted. James Milne, a spokesman for the group of five academic publishers, which includes Elsevier, Wiley and Brill, said that the first batch of take-down notices would be sent "imminently". "We're not doing this in any way against the researchers, we're doing this against ResearchGate," he told Times Higher Education. The site was "clearly hosting and happily uploading material that they know they don't have the license or copyrights" to, and was "refusing to work with us to solve that problem", he added. According to a survey of academics released last year, Berlin-based ResearchGate is by some way the world's biggest academic social network, used by about 60 per cent of academics, particularly in the physical and life sciences, and has raised nearly $90 million (?68 million) in funding from investors, according to the website Crunchbase. Publishers are seeing "anecdotal" evidence that the availability of papers on the site is eating into their revenues, said Dr Milne. "We have heard during the subscriptions renewal process that librarians are occasionally referencing ResearchGate as an alternative to resubscribing to journals," he said. He attacked ResearchGate as being "backed by hundreds of millions of dollars [from venture capitalists,] who are seeking to make a profit from what [ResearchGate] do, which is upload copyright infringed material". "They put nothing back into the process for generating and validating and curating all that material," he said. The publisher Elsevier drew a backlash from many academics in 2013 when it told users of Academia.edu, a rival to ResearchGate, to take down papers to which it had rights. Dr Milne stressed that this time, the publishers would not directly send take-down notices to academics. "We will work with ResearchGate on this, not researchers," he said, although the organisation would be communicating "en masse" with academics about how they can share their work properly. But for the publishers, sending out mass take-down notices is not a permanent solution. "That in itself doesn't solve the problem, because every day ResearchGate is uploading more and more material," said Dr Milne, trapping publishers in a "perpetual loop" of having to identify infringing papers. He argued that this would be confusing for researchers, as "one day there's content, and the next day there isn't", he said. Elsevier and the American Chemical Society are therefore also taking ResearchGate to court where they hope to obtain a ruling that would stop ResearchGate "scraping content off the web, uploading it...and asking researchers to claim it" so that infringing material "is not in the public domain", he explained. The court claim would be lodged in Europe, he said. A ResearchGate spokeswoman declined to comment. The company's founder and chief executive, Ijad Madisch, has previously said that he "wouldn't mind" if copyrighted material was removed from the site, as researchers could continue to share papers privately. david.matthews@timeshighereducation.com From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Sun Oct 8 06:03:23 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 13:03:23 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Object oriented activity and communication In-Reply-To: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com>, <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> Dear Sasha, all, thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding response. I think you are right in your assertion that we are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. However, one can see in the lack of response by other members?? that not everyone has the privilege of the time it requires to go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce and I hope it is/will be appreciated as such. If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I quote from your response: "If we want to make our choice of the initial category, without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will choose the one of the two categories from which one can derive the entire diversity of human life, including another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that such an initial category can only be object-oriented activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" If we stay within the boundaries of the framework according to which we are looking of the most original germ cell, the one from which all others can be developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree on that. But ??once we are back to the development of a concrete Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact that, for any child to participate in human forms of object-oriented activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into those forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you describe, is this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, or is it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? As moderator, I should stop there and let others answer (which I hope some do). As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of teaching deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this is only possible through *involvement* in collective activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is only possible in and through object-oriented activity). But then, is not the teaching, the instructional aspect of the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all those attributes that you just called 'spiritually uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get collective activity without them? On this, and precisely in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of Man", Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in that case that communication is included in activity and is its essential component: without relation to another person(s), activity is impossible' (144). Although I not always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I can't see how he can be wrong. So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the category of object-oriented activity, is most primary. Let me also note that ?there are other authors who have developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom affectivity is the concrete 'essence of auto-affection' ( https://www.amazon.com/Incarnation-Philosophy-Studies-Phenomenology-Existential/dp/0810131269 ) As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I wonder whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity and communication. Is not the distinction just an artefact of a partial understanding of what it means activity and what it means communicating. I still feel that communication, in the sense of addressivity that Mikhailov describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I don't see how any practical activity can have any sense (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are talking about; one machines could perform on their own without consciousness. ? Best wishes, Alfredo ________________________________ From: Alexander Surmava Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole Subject: Object oriented activity and communication Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, touching on the most fundamental categories. But before proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica aside) :-) Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, based on the general principles accepted in its framework and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a common, unifying conception are usually considered the theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the interpretation of these concepts. For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is possible to consider both objective activity and communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? I am convinced that without answering these and similar fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry and without answering them in the most general form, we are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, based on which we can practically solve socially significant problems, let us say, create a consistently democratic education system, we draw everyone to the interesting only for us theoretical verbiage about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between Vygotsky and Leontiev. Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too to reflect on how to help find the path to education and culture for the children of poor migrants from Central Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. Agitprop sticks in my teeth too, and I?d rather compose romances for you - more profit in it and more charm. But I subdued myself, setting my heel on the throat of my own song. Vladimir Mayakovski ? ??? ???????? ? ????? ?????, ? ??? ?? ???????? ??????? ?? ??? ? ???????? ??? ? ??????????. ?? ? ???? ??????, ????????? ?? ????? ??????????? ?????. ???????? ?????????? Among other things, such an over and over again forced return to the very foundation makes it difficult to understand even these very basics, for it forces us to return to the most abstract level all the time, literally stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract to the concrete. Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions about how to understand the principle of interaction as such and about the relationship of object oriented activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed answers to these questions have been formulated by me in my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? ????????????. Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is available in English. It was even sent in published in English international journal... but for some strange reason was not published then or later. So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, especially since I can answer by quoting my old text https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS. But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" is also an interaction, but that is its highest, essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense that one can not in principle separate out its active and passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in the process of positing of an object one side is active, subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There are many interesting differences between them, but let us return to this somehow later. In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation work of 1988: ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant leaves (with his telescope). That is to say that living, active or predmet relation as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital activity. Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into contact with its living subjectivity. To put it differently, we can find not the slightest trace of predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive relation.? Now about the object oriented activity and communication, and it does not matter whether in the verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's "addressing" to another person. Which of these two categories should be considered primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and remains the central problem of theoretical psychology associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and Ilyenkov. To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want to build scientific psychology in accordance with the famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers believed that the method of ascent, the method of "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one thing - either activity or communication. And at first glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations.. " And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely scientific psychology consisted only in the need to reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely difficult situation, because the classics left us with different meanings on this topic and with which of them it is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, and with which in the second, it would still have to be solved by ourselves. So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was AN Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" were for communication. Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something rather indecent. The end of the discussion between supporters of "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of Leontief's psychology department was appointed a well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in the ideological department of the Central Committee of CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE could not reverse the situation too. Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to "communication" and "activity." If we want to make our choice of the initial category, without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will choose the one of the two categories from which one can derive the entire diversity of human life, including another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that such an initial category can only be object-oriented activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and the entire affective sphere associated with it is first generated by objective activity at the most basic level, in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. And, finally, it demonstrates how the external reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, together and practically producing their own lives, assumes a specifically human character, being a reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" communication and the affective side of life are taken not as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s REFLEXIVE side. The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the relation of objective activity and "communication". In the same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, any other, psychology. ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????, ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable place for introducing such fundamental concepts, therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large English text https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS and read it to the end :-). ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? ??????????? ???????? https://www.avramus.com/app/download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 . Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, touching on the most fundamental categories. But before proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica aside) :-) Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, based on the general principles accepted in its framework and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a common, unifying conception are usually considered the theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the interpretation of these concepts. For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is possible to consider both objective activity and communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? I am convinced that without answering these and similar fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry and without answering them in the most general form, we are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, based on which we can practically solve socially significant problems, let us say, create a consistently democratic education system, we draw everyone to the interesting only for us theoretical verbiage about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between Vygotsky and Leontiev. Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too to reflect on how to help find the path to education and culture for the children of poor migrants from Central Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. Agitprop sticks in my teeth too, and I?d rather compose romances for you - more profit in it and more charm. But I subdued myself, setting my heel on the throat of my own song. Vladimir Mayakovski ? ??? ???????? ? ????? ?????, ? ??? ?? ???????? ??????? ?? ??? ? ???????? ??? ? ??????????. ?? ? ???? ??????, ????????? ?? ????? ??????????? ?????. ???????? ?????????? Among other things, such an over and over again forced return to the very foundation makes it difficult to understand even these very basics, for it forces us to return to the most abstract level all the time, literally stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract to the concrete. Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions about how to understand the principle of interaction as such and about the relationship of object oriented activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed answers to these questions have been formulated by me in my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? ????????????. Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is available in English. It was even sent in published in English international journal... but for some strange reason was not published then or later. So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, especially since I can answer by quoting my old text https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS. But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" is also an interaction, but that is its highest, essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense that one can not in principle separate out its active and passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in the process of positing of an object one side is active, subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There are many interesting differences between them, but let us return to this somehow later. In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation work of 1988: ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant leaves (with his telescope). That is to say that living, active or predmet relation as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital activity. Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into contact with its living subjectivity. To put it differently, we can find not the slightest trace of predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive relation.? Now about the object oriented activity and communication, and it does not matter whether in the verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's "addressing" to another person. Which of these two categories should be considered primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and remains the central problem of theoretical psychology associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and Ilyenkov. To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want to build scientific psychology in accordance with the famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers believed that the method of ascent, the method of "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one thing - either activity or communication. And at first glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations.. " And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely scientific psychology consisted only in the need to reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely difficult situation, because the classics left us with different meanings on this topic and with which of them it is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, and with which in the second, it would still have to be solved by ourselves. So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas "Leningraders" were for "communication". Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a literal reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something rather indecent. The end of the discussion between supporters of "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of Leontief's psychology department was appointed a well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in the ideological department of the Central Committee of CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE could not reverse the situation too. Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to "communication" and "activity." If we want to make our choice of the initial category, without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will choose the one of the two categories from which one can derive the entire diversity of human life, including another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that such an initial category can only be object-oriented activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the object oriented activity, which is an attribute property of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we will never get life or object oriented activity even with the greatest diligence. And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and the entire affective sphere associated with it is first generated by objective activity at the most basic level, in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. And, finally, it demonstrates how the external reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, together and practically producing their own lives, assumes a specifically human character, being a reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" communication and the affective side of life are taken not as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s REFLEXIVE side. The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the relation of objective activity and "communication". In the same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, any other, psychology. The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable place for introducing such fundamental concepts, therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large English text https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS and read it to the end :-). The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? ???????????? Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short English one https://www.avramus.com/app/download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. Sasha From ablunden@mira.net Sun Oct 8 06:13:42 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 00:13:42 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Object oriented activity and communication In-Reply-To: <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: I'll ask Sasha a question. Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial category can only be object-oriented activity" as it stands, in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be that you are translating it from a Russian statement that is correct. Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in when I say "every activity has an object." But in your expression above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and unless you are a religious person is not something which can have a specific object. All English translations of A N Leontyev make this mistake which has caused no end of confusion among English-speakers. Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," just as you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Dear Sasha, all, > > > thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding response. I think you are right in your assertion that we are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. However, one can see in the lack of response by other members?? that not everyone has the privilege of the time it requires to go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce and I hope it is/will be appreciated as such. > > > If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I quote from your response: > > > "If we want to make our choice of the initial category, without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will choose the one of the two categories from which one can derive the entire diversity of human life, including another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that such an initial category can only be object-oriented activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" > > > If we stay within the boundaries of the framework according to which we are looking of the most original germ cell, the one from which all others can be developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree on that. > > > But ??once we are back to the development of a concrete Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact that, for any child to participate in human forms of object-oriented activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into those forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you describe, is this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, or is it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? > > > As moderator, I should stop there and let others answer (which I hope some do). > > As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: > > > Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of teaching deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this is only possible through *involvement* in collective activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is only possible in and through object-oriented activity). But then, is not the teaching, the instructional aspect of the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all those attributes that you just called 'spiritually uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get collective activity without them? On this, and precisely in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of Man", Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in that case that communication is included in activity and is its essential component: without relation to another person(s), activity is impossible' (144). Although I not always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I can't see how he can be wrong. > > > So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the category of object-oriented activity, is most primary. Let me also note that ?there are other authors who have developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom affectivity is the concrete 'essence of auto-affection' ( https://www.amazon.com/Incarnation-Philosophy-Studies-Phenomenology-Existential/dp/0810131269 ) > > > As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I wonder whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity and communication. Is not the distinction just an artefact of a partial understanding of what it means activity and what it means communicating. I still feel that communication, in the sense of addressivity that Mikhailov describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I don't see how any practical activity can have any sense (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are talking about; one machines could perform on their own without consciousness. ? > > > Best wishes, > > Alfredo > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Alexander Surmava > Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole > Subject: Object oriented activity and communication > > Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, touching on the most fundamental categories. But before proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica aside) :-) > Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, based on the general principles accepted in its framework and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a common, unifying conception are usually considered the theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the interpretation of these concepts. > For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is possible to consider both objective activity and communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? > I am convinced that without answering these and similar fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry and without answering them in the most general form, we are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, based on which we can practically solve socially significant problems, let us say, create a consistently democratic education system, we draw everyone to the interesting only for us theoretical verbiage about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between Vygotsky and Leontiev. > Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too to reflect on how to help find the path to education and culture for the children of poor migrants from Central Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > > Agitprop > sticks > in my teeth too, > and I?d rather > compose > romances for you - > more profit in it > and more charm. > But I > subdued > myself, > setting my heel > on the throat > of my own song. > Vladimir Mayakovski > > ? ??? > ???????? > ? ????? ?????, > ? ??? ?? > ???????? > ??????? ?? ??? ? > ???????? ??? > ? ??????????. > ?? ? > ???? > ??????, > ????????? > ?? ????? > ??????????? ?????. > ???????? ?????????? > > > Among other things, such an over and over again forced return to the very foundation makes it difficult to understand even these very basics, for it forces us to return to the most abstract level all the time, literally stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract to the concrete. > Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions about how to understand the principle of interaction as such and about the relationship of object oriented activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed answers to these questions have been formulated by me in my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? ????????????. Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is available in English. It was even sent in published in English international journal... but for some strange reason was not published then or later. > So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, especially since I can answer by quoting my old text https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS. > But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" is also an interaction, but that is its highest, essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense that one can not in principle separate out its active and passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in the process of positing of an object one side is active, subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There are many interesting differences between them, but let us return to this somehow later. > In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation work of 1988: > ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant leaves (with his telescope). > That is to say that living, active or predmet relation as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital activity. > Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into contact with its living subjectivity. To put it differently, we can find not the slightest trace of predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive relation.? > Now about the object oriented activity and communication, and it does not matter whether in the verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's "addressing" to another person. > Which of these two categories should be considered primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and remains the central problem of theoretical psychology associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and Ilyenkov. > To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want to build scientific psychology in accordance with the famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers believed that the method of ascent, the method of "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one thing - either activity or communication. And at first glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations.. " > And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely scientific psychology consisted only in the need to reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely difficult situation, because the classics left us with different meanings on this topic and with which of them it is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, and with which in the second, it would still have to be solved by ourselves. > So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was AN Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" were for communication. > Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something rather indecent. > The end of the discussion between supporters of "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of Leontief's psychology department was appointed a well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in the ideological department of the Central Committee of CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE could not reverse the situation too. > Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to "communication" and "activity." > If we want to make our choice of the initial category, without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will choose the one of the two categories from which one can derive the entire diversity of human life, including another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that such an initial category can only be object-oriented activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. > And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and the entire affective sphere associated with it is first generated by objective activity at the most basic level, in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. And, finally, it demonstrates how the external reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, together and practically producing their own lives, assumes a specifically human character, being a reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. > We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" communication and the affective side of life are taken not as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s REFLEXIVE side. > The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the relation of objective activity and "communication". In the same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, any other, psychology. > ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????, ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. > The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable place for introducing such fundamental concepts, therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large English text https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS and read it to the end :-). > ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? ???????????? > ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? ??????????? ???????? https://www.avramus.com/app/download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 . > Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, touching on the most fundamental categories. But before proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica aside) :-) > Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, based on the general principles accepted in its framework and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a common, unifying conception are usually considered the theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the interpretation of these concepts. > For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is possible to consider both objective activity and communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? > I am convinced that without answering these and similar fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry and without answering them in the most general form, we are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, based on which we can practically solve socially significant problems, let us say, create a consistently democratic education system, we draw everyone to the interesting only for us theoretical verbiage about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between Vygotsky and Leontiev. > Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too to reflect on how to help find the path to education and culture for the children of poor migrants from Central Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > > Agitprop > sticks > in my teeth too, > and I?d rather > compose > romances for you - > more profit in it > and more charm. > But I > subdued > myself, > setting my heel > on the throat > of my own song. > Vladimir Mayakovski > > ? ??? > ???????? > ? ????? ?????, > ? ??? ?? > ???????? > ??????? ?? ??? ? > ???????? ??? > ? ??????????. > ?? ? > ???? > ??????, > ????????? > ?? ????? > ??????????? ?????. > ???????? ?????????? > > > Among other things, such an over and over again forced return to the very foundation makes it difficult to understand even these very basics, for it forces us to return to the most abstract level all the time, literally stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract to the concrete. > Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions about how to understand the principle of interaction as such and about the relationship of object oriented activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed answers to these questions have been formulated by me in my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? ????????????. Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is available in English. It was even sent in published in English international journal... but for some strange reason was not published then or later. > So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, especially since I can answer by quoting my old text https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS. > But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" is also an interaction, but that is its highest, essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense that one can not in principle separate out its active and passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in the process of positing of an object one side is active, subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There are many interesting differences between them, but let us return to this somehow later. > In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation work of 1988: > ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant leaves (with his telescope). > That is to say that living, active or predmet relation as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital activity. > Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into contact with its living subjectivity. To put it differently, we can find not the slightest trace of predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive relation.? > Now about the object oriented activity and communication, and it does not matter whether in the verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's "addressing" to another person. > Which of these two categories should be considered primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and remains the central problem of theoretical psychology associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and Ilyenkov. > To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want to build scientific psychology in accordance with the famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers believed that the method of ascent, the method of "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one thing - either activity or communication. And at first glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations.. " > And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely scientific psychology consisted only in the need to reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely difficult situation, because the classics left us with different meanings on this topic and with which of them it is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, and with which in the second, it would still have to be solved by ourselves. > > So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas "Leningraders" were for "communication". > Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a literal reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something rather indecent. > > The end of the discussion between supporters of "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of Leontief's psychology department was appointed a well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in the ideological department of the Central Committee of CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE could not reverse the situation too. > > Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to "communication" and "activity." > If we want to make our choice of the initial category, without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will choose the one of the two categories from which one can derive the entire diversity of human life, including another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that such an initial category can only be object-oriented activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the object oriented activity, which is an attribute property of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we will never get life or object oriented activity even with the greatest diligence. > > And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and the entire affective sphere associated with it is first generated by objective activity at the most basic level, in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. > And, finally, it demonstrates how the external reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, together and practically producing their own lives, assumes a specifically human character, being a reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. > > We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" communication and the affective side of life are taken not as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s REFLEXIVE side. > > The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the relation of objective activity and "communication". In the same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, any other, psychology. > The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable place for introducing such fundamental concepts, therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large English text https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS and read it to the end :-). > > The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? ???????????? > > Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short English one https://www.avramus.com/app/download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. > > Sasha > > > From Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch Sun Oct 8 06:19:36 2017 From: Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch (PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 13:19:36 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate In-Reply-To: <1507462271698.29592@iped.uio.no> References: <1507462271698.29592@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Thanks for these very interesting links. The new political line of the Swiss National Research Foundation (SNSF) on these issues is very interesting: "The results of research financed by public funds should be published electronically so that they are freely and immediately available without charge and can thus be reused by third parties, since they are considered as a public good. In support of the principle of Open Access, the SNSF expects grantees to make the results of the research projects it has supported accessible to the public". This will concern almost all scientists in Switzerland. See: http://www.snf.ch/en/theSNSF/research-policies/open-access/Pages/default.as px Anne-Nelly Prof. em. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont Institut de psychologie et ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace L. Agassiz 1, CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (Switzerland) -----Message d'origine----- De : on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date : dimanche, 8 octobre 2017 13:31 ? : "xmca-l@ucsd.edu" , "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate That's a complex matter, Peter. Thanks for sharing. I wonder what the views of others are. I am still forming mine, but would like to contribute with another resource to do so, an article from The Guardian on profitable business scientific publishing https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scienti fic-publishing-bad-for-science Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Peter Smagorinsky Sent: 07 October 2017 17:31 To: xmca-l@ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/publishers-seek-removal-millions- papers-researchgate Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate Academic social network accused of infringing copyright on a massive scale Leading publishers are stepping up their fight against ResearchGate by ordering the academic social network to take down papers that they say infringe copyright. The move could see millions of articles removed from the site, as the publishers say up to 40 per cent of papers on ResearchGate are copyrighted. James Milne, a spokesman for the group of five academic publishers, which includes Elsevier, Wiley and Brill, said that the first batch of take-down notices would be sent "imminently". "We're not doing this in any way against the researchers, we're doing this against ResearchGate," he told Times Higher Education. The site was "clearly hosting and happily uploading material that they know they don't have the license or copyrights" to, and was "refusing to work with us to solve that problem", he added. According to a survey of academics released last year, Berlin-based ResearchGate is by some way the world's biggest academic social network, used by about 60 per cent of academics, particularly in the physical and life sciences, and has raised nearly $90 million (?68 million) in funding from investors, according to the website Crunchbase. Publishers are seeing "anecdotal" evidence that the availability of papers on the site is eating into their revenues, said Dr Milne. "We have heard during the subscriptions renewal process that librarians are occasionally referencing ResearchGate as an alternative to resubscribing to journals," he said. He attacked ResearchGate as being "backed by hundreds of millions of dollars [from venture capitalists,] who are seeking to make a profit from what [ResearchGate] do, which is upload copyright infringed material". "They put nothing back into the process for generating and validating and curating all that material," he said. The publisher Elsevier drew a backlash from many academics in 2013 when it told users of Academia.edu, a rival to ResearchGate, to take down papers to which it had rights. Dr Milne stressed that this time, the publishers would not directly send take-down notices to academics. "We will work with ResearchGate on this, not researchers," he said, although the organisation would be communicating "en masse" with academics about how they can share their work properly. But for the publishers, sending out mass take-down notices is not a permanent solution. "That in itself doesn't solve the problem, because every day ResearchGate is uploading more and more material," said Dr Milne, trapping publishers in a "perpetual loop" of having to identify infringing papers. He argued that this would be confusing for researchers, as "one day there's content, and the next day there isn't", he said. Elsevier and the American Chemical Society are therefore also taking ResearchGate to court where they hope to obtain a ruling that would stop ResearchGate "scraping content off the web, uploading it...and asking researchers to claim it" so that infringing material "is not in the public domain", he explained. The court claim would be lodged in Europe, he said. A ResearchGate spokeswoman declined to comment. The company's founder and chief executive, Ijad Madisch, has previously said that he "wouldn't mind" if copyrighted material was removed from the site, as researchers could continue to share papers privately. david.matthews@timeshighereducation.com From Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch Sun Oct 8 06:19:36 2017 From: Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch (PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 13:19:36 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate In-Reply-To: <1507462271698.29592@iped.uio.no> References: <1507462271698.29592@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Thanks for these very interesting links. The new political line of the Swiss National Research Foundation (SNSF) on these issues is very interesting: "The results of research financed by public funds should be published electronically so that they are freely and immediately available without charge and can thus be reused by third parties, since they are considered as a public good. In support of the principle of Open Access, the SNSF expects grantees to make the results of the research projects it has supported accessible to the public". This will concern almost all scientists in Switzerland. See: http://www.snf.ch/en/theSNSF/research-policies/open-access/Pages/default.as px Anne-Nelly Prof. em. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont Institut de psychologie et ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace L. Agassiz 1, CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (Switzerland) -----Message d'origine----- De : on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date : dimanche, 8 octobre 2017 13:31 ? : "xmca-l@ucsd.edu" , "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate That's a complex matter, Peter. Thanks for sharing. I wonder what the views of others are. I am still forming mine, but would like to contribute with another resource to do so, an article from The Guardian on profitable business scientific publishing https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scienti fic-publishing-bad-for-science Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Peter Smagorinsky Sent: 07 October 2017 17:31 To: xmca-l@ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/publishers-seek-removal-millions- papers-researchgate Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate Academic social network accused of infringing copyright on a massive scale Leading publishers are stepping up their fight against ResearchGate by ordering the academic social network to take down papers that they say infringe copyright. The move could see millions of articles removed from the site, as the publishers say up to 40 per cent of papers on ResearchGate are copyrighted. James Milne, a spokesman for the group of five academic publishers, which includes Elsevier, Wiley and Brill, said that the first batch of take-down notices would be sent "imminently". "We're not doing this in any way against the researchers, we're doing this against ResearchGate," he told Times Higher Education. The site was "clearly hosting and happily uploading material that they know they don't have the license or copyrights" to, and was "refusing to work with us to solve that problem", he added. According to a survey of academics released last year, Berlin-based ResearchGate is by some way the world's biggest academic social network, used by about 60 per cent of academics, particularly in the physical and life sciences, and has raised nearly $90 million (?68 million) in funding from investors, according to the website Crunchbase. Publishers are seeing "anecdotal" evidence that the availability of papers on the site is eating into their revenues, said Dr Milne. "We have heard during the subscriptions renewal process that librarians are occasionally referencing ResearchGate as an alternative to resubscribing to journals," he said. He attacked ResearchGate as being "backed by hundreds of millions of dollars [from venture capitalists,] who are seeking to make a profit from what [ResearchGate] do, which is upload copyright infringed material". "They put nothing back into the process for generating and validating and curating all that material," he said. The publisher Elsevier drew a backlash from many academics in 2013 when it told users of Academia.edu, a rival to ResearchGate, to take down papers to which it had rights. Dr Milne stressed that this time, the publishers would not directly send take-down notices to academics. "We will work with ResearchGate on this, not researchers," he said, although the organisation would be communicating "en masse" with academics about how they can share their work properly. But for the publishers, sending out mass take-down notices is not a permanent solution. "That in itself doesn't solve the problem, because every day ResearchGate is uploading more and more material," said Dr Milne, trapping publishers in a "perpetual loop" of having to identify infringing papers. He argued that this would be confusing for researchers, as "one day there's content, and the next day there isn't", he said. Elsevier and the American Chemical Society are therefore also taking ResearchGate to court where they hope to obtain a ruling that would stop ResearchGate "scraping content off the web, uploading it...and asking researchers to claim it" so that infringing material "is not in the public domain", he explained. The court claim would be lodged in Europe, he said. A ResearchGate spokeswoman declined to comment. The company's founder and chief executive, Ijad Madisch, has previously said that he "wouldn't mind" if copyrighted material was removed from the site, as researchers could continue to share papers privately. david.matthews@timeshighereducation.com From Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch Sun Oct 8 06:25:10 2017 From: Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch (PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 13:25:10 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate In-Reply-To: References: <1507462271698.29592@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Sorry the link in English is deficient . Try this one and then change the language by replacing "FR" by "EN" on the top/right of the screen: http://www.snf.ch/fr/leFNS/points-de-vue-politique-de-recherche/open-access /Pages/default.aspx Anne-Nelly -----Message d'origine----- De : on behalf of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date : dimanche, 8 octobre 2017 15:19 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" , "xmca-l@ucsd.edu" Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate Thanks for these very interesting links. The new political line of the Swiss National Research Foundation (SNSF) on these issues is very interesting: "The results of research financed by public funds should be published electronically so that they are freely and immediately available without charge and can thus be reused by third parties, since they are considered as a public good. In support of the principle of Open Access, the SNSF expects grantees to make the results of the research projects it has supported accessible to the public". This will concern almost all scientists in Switzerland. See: http://www.snf.ch/en/theSNSF/research-policies/open-access/Pages/default.as px Anne-Nelly Prof. em. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont Institut de psychologie et ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace L. Agassiz 1, CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (Switzerland) -----Message d'origine----- De : on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date : dimanche, 8 octobre 2017 13:31 ? : "xmca-l@ucsd.edu" , "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate That's a complex matter, Peter. Thanks for sharing. I wonder what the views of others are. I am still forming mine, but would like to contribute with another resource to do so, an article from The Guardian on profitable business scientific publishing https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scienti fic-publishing-bad-for-science Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Peter Smagorinsky Sent: 07 October 2017 17:31 To: xmca-l@ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/publishers-seek-removal-millions- papers-researchgate Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate Academic social network accused of infringing copyright on a massive scale Leading publishers are stepping up their fight against ResearchGate by ordering the academic social network to take down papers that they say infringe copyright. The move could see millions of articles removed from the site, as the publishers say up to 40 per cent of papers on ResearchGate are copyrighted. James Milne, a spokesman for the group of five academic publishers, which includes Elsevier, Wiley and Brill, said that the first batch of take-down notices would be sent "imminently". "We're not doing this in any way against the researchers, we're doing this against ResearchGate," he told Times Higher Education. The site was "clearly hosting and happily uploading material that they know they don't have the license or copyrights" to, and was "refusing to work with us to solve that problem", he added. According to a survey of academics released last year, Berlin-based ResearchGate is by some way the world's biggest academic social network, used by about 60 per cent of academics, particularly in the physical and life sciences, and has raised nearly $90 million (?68 million) in funding from investors, according to the website Crunchbase. Publishers are seeing "anecdotal" evidence that the availability of papers on the site is eating into their revenues, said Dr Milne. "We have heard during the subscriptions renewal process that librarians are occasionally referencing ResearchGate as an alternative to resubscribing to journals," he said. He attacked ResearchGate as being "backed by hundreds of millions of dollars [from venture capitalists,] who are seeking to make a profit from what [ResearchGate] do, which is upload copyright infringed material". "They put nothing back into the process for generating and validating and curating all that material," he said. The publisher Elsevier drew a backlash from many academics in 2013 when it told users of Academia.edu, a rival to ResearchGate, to take down papers to which it had rights. Dr Milne stressed that this time, the publishers would not directly send take-down notices to academics. "We will work with ResearchGate on this, not researchers," he said, although the organisation would be communicating "en masse" with academics about how they can share their work properly. But for the publishers, sending out mass take-down notices is not a permanent solution. "That in itself doesn't solve the problem, because every day ResearchGate is uploading more and more material," said Dr Milne, trapping publishers in a "perpetual loop" of having to identify infringing papers. He argued that this would be confusing for researchers, as "one day there's content, and the next day there isn't", he said. Elsevier and the American Chemical Society are therefore also taking ResearchGate to court where they hope to obtain a ruling that would stop ResearchGate "scraping content off the web, uploading it...and asking researchers to claim it" so that infringing material "is not in the public domain", he explained. The court claim would be lodged in Europe, he said. A ResearchGate spokeswoman declined to comment. The company's founder and chief executive, Ijad Madisch, has previously said that he "wouldn't mind" if copyrighted material was removed from the site, as researchers could continue to share papers privately. david.matthews@timeshighereducation.com From Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch Sun Oct 8 06:25:10 2017 From: Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch (PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 13:25:10 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate In-Reply-To: References: <1507462271698.29592@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Sorry the link in English is deficient . Try this one and then change the language by replacing "FR" by "EN" on the top/right of the screen: http://www.snf.ch/fr/leFNS/points-de-vue-politique-de-recherche/open-access /Pages/default.aspx Anne-Nelly -----Message d'origine----- De : on behalf of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date : dimanche, 8 octobre 2017 15:19 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" , "xmca-l@ucsd.edu" Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate Thanks for these very interesting links. The new political line of the Swiss National Research Foundation (SNSF) on these issues is very interesting: "The results of research financed by public funds should be published electronically so that they are freely and immediately available without charge and can thus be reused by third parties, since they are considered as a public good. In support of the principle of Open Access, the SNSF expects grantees to make the results of the research projects it has supported accessible to the public". This will concern almost all scientists in Switzerland. See: http://www.snf.ch/en/theSNSF/research-policies/open-access/Pages/default.as px Anne-Nelly Prof. em. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont Institut de psychologie et ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace L. Agassiz 1, CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (Switzerland) -----Message d'origine----- De : on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date : dimanche, 8 octobre 2017 13:31 ? : "xmca-l@ucsd.edu" , "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate That's a complex matter, Peter. Thanks for sharing. I wonder what the views of others are. I am still forming mine, but would like to contribute with another resource to do so, an article from The Guardian on profitable business scientific publishing https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scienti fic-publishing-bad-for-science Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Peter Smagorinsky Sent: 07 October 2017 17:31 To: xmca-l@ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/publishers-seek-removal-millions- papers-researchgate Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate Academic social network accused of infringing copyright on a massive scale Leading publishers are stepping up their fight against ResearchGate by ordering the academic social network to take down papers that they say infringe copyright. The move could see millions of articles removed from the site, as the publishers say up to 40 per cent of papers on ResearchGate are copyrighted. James Milne, a spokesman for the group of five academic publishers, which includes Elsevier, Wiley and Brill, said that the first batch of take-down notices would be sent "imminently". "We're not doing this in any way against the researchers, we're doing this against ResearchGate," he told Times Higher Education. The site was "clearly hosting and happily uploading material that they know they don't have the license or copyrights" to, and was "refusing to work with us to solve that problem", he added. According to a survey of academics released last year, Berlin-based ResearchGate is by some way the world's biggest academic social network, used by about 60 per cent of academics, particularly in the physical and life sciences, and has raised nearly $90 million (?68 million) in funding from investors, according to the website Crunchbase. Publishers are seeing "anecdotal" evidence that the availability of papers on the site is eating into their revenues, said Dr Milne. "We have heard during the subscriptions renewal process that librarians are occasionally referencing ResearchGate as an alternative to resubscribing to journals," he said. He attacked ResearchGate as being "backed by hundreds of millions of dollars [from venture capitalists,] who are seeking to make a profit from what [ResearchGate] do, which is upload copyright infringed material". "They put nothing back into the process for generating and validating and curating all that material," he said. The publisher Elsevier drew a backlash from many academics in 2013 when it told users of Academia.edu, a rival to ResearchGate, to take down papers to which it had rights. Dr Milne stressed that this time, the publishers would not directly send take-down notices to academics. "We will work with ResearchGate on this, not researchers," he said, although the organisation would be communicating "en masse" with academics about how they can share their work properly. But for the publishers, sending out mass take-down notices is not a permanent solution. "That in itself doesn't solve the problem, because every day ResearchGate is uploading more and more material," said Dr Milne, trapping publishers in a "perpetual loop" of having to identify infringing papers. He argued that this would be confusing for researchers, as "one day there's content, and the next day there isn't", he said. Elsevier and the American Chemical Society are therefore also taking ResearchGate to court where they hope to obtain a ruling that would stop ResearchGate "scraping content off the web, uploading it...and asking researchers to claim it" so that infringing material "is not in the public domain", he explained. The court claim would be lodged in Europe, he said. A ResearchGate spokeswoman declined to comment. The company's founder and chief executive, Ijad Madisch, has previously said that he "wouldn't mind" if copyrighted material was removed from the site, as researchers could continue to share papers privately. david.matthews@timeshighereducation.com From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Sun Oct 8 06:27:17 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 13:27:17 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate In-Reply-To: References: <1507462271698.29592@iped.uio.no> , Message-ID: <1507469237581.2132@iped.uio.no> Thanks Anne-Nelly, I used the feature to change to English and it worked perfectly, Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly Sent: 08 October 2017 15:25 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; xmca-l@ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate Sorry the link in English is deficient . Try this one and then change the language by replacing "FR" by "EN" on the top/right of the screen: http://www.snf.ch/fr/leFNS/points-de-vue-politique-de-recherche/open-access /Pages/default.aspx Anne-Nelly -----Message d'origine----- De : on behalf of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date : dimanche, 8 octobre 2017 15:19 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" , "xmca-l@ucsd.edu" Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate Thanks for these very interesting links. The new political line of the Swiss National Research Foundation (SNSF) on these issues is very interesting: "The results of research financed by public funds should be published electronically so that they are freely and immediately available without charge and can thus be reused by third parties, since they are considered as a public good. In support of the principle of Open Access, the SNSF expects grantees to make the results of the research projects it has supported accessible to the public". This will concern almost all scientists in Switzerland. See: http://www.snf.ch/en/theSNSF/research-policies/open-access/Pages/default.as px Anne-Nelly Prof. em. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont Institut de psychologie et ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace L. Agassiz 1, CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (Switzerland) -----Message d'origine----- De : on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date : dimanche, 8 octobre 2017 13:31 ? : "xmca-l@ucsd.edu" , "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate That's a complex matter, Peter. Thanks for sharing. I wonder what the views of others are. I am still forming mine, but would like to contribute with another resource to do so, an article from The Guardian on profitable business scientific publishing https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scienti fic-publishing-bad-for-science Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Peter Smagorinsky Sent: 07 October 2017 17:31 To: xmca-l@ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/publishers-seek-removal-millions- papers-researchgate Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate Academic social network accused of infringing copyright on a massive scale Leading publishers are stepping up their fight against ResearchGate by ordering the academic social network to take down papers that they say infringe copyright. The move could see millions of articles removed from the site, as the publishers say up to 40 per cent of papers on ResearchGate are copyrighted. James Milne, a spokesman for the group of five academic publishers, which includes Elsevier, Wiley and Brill, said that the first batch of take-down notices would be sent "imminently". "We're not doing this in any way against the researchers, we're doing this against ResearchGate," he told Times Higher Education. The site was "clearly hosting and happily uploading material that they know they don't have the license or copyrights" to, and was "refusing to work with us to solve that problem", he added. According to a survey of academics released last year, Berlin-based ResearchGate is by some way the world's biggest academic social network, used by about 60 per cent of academics, particularly in the physical and life sciences, and has raised nearly $90 million (?68 million) in funding from investors, according to the website Crunchbase. Publishers are seeing "anecdotal" evidence that the availability of papers on the site is eating into their revenues, said Dr Milne. "We have heard during the subscriptions renewal process that librarians are occasionally referencing ResearchGate as an alternative to resubscribing to journals," he said. He attacked ResearchGate as being "backed by hundreds of millions of dollars [from venture capitalists,] who are seeking to make a profit from what [ResearchGate] do, which is upload copyright infringed material". "They put nothing back into the process for generating and validating and curating all that material," he said. The publisher Elsevier drew a backlash from many academics in 2013 when it told users of Academia.edu, a rival to ResearchGate, to take down papers to which it had rights. Dr Milne stressed that this time, the publishers would not directly send take-down notices to academics. "We will work with ResearchGate on this, not researchers," he said, although the organisation would be communicating "en masse" with academics about how they can share their work properly. But for the publishers, sending out mass take-down notices is not a permanent solution. "That in itself doesn't solve the problem, because every day ResearchGate is uploading more and more material," said Dr Milne, trapping publishers in a "perpetual loop" of having to identify infringing papers. He argued that this would be confusing for researchers, as "one day there's content, and the next day there isn't", he said. Elsevier and the American Chemical Society are therefore also taking ResearchGate to court where they hope to obtain a ruling that would stop ResearchGate "scraping content off the web, uploading it...and asking researchers to claim it" so that infringing material "is not in the public domain", he explained. The court claim would be lodged in Europe, he said. A ResearchGate spokeswoman declined to comment. The company's founder and chief executive, Ijad Madisch, has previously said that he "wouldn't mind" if copyrighted material was removed from the site, as researchers could continue to share papers privately. david.matthews@timeshighereducation.com From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Sun Oct 8 06:27:17 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 13:27:17 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate In-Reply-To: References: <1507462271698.29592@iped.uio.no> , Message-ID: <1507469237581.2132@iped.uio.no> Thanks Anne-Nelly, I used the feature to change to English and it worked perfectly, Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly Sent: 08 October 2017 15:25 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; xmca-l@ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate Sorry the link in English is deficient . Try this one and then change the language by replacing "FR" by "EN" on the top/right of the screen: http://www.snf.ch/fr/leFNS/points-de-vue-politique-de-recherche/open-access /Pages/default.aspx Anne-Nelly -----Message d'origine----- De : on behalf of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date : dimanche, 8 octobre 2017 15:19 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" , "xmca-l@ucsd.edu" Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate Thanks for these very interesting links. The new political line of the Swiss National Research Foundation (SNSF) on these issues is very interesting: "The results of research financed by public funds should be published electronically so that they are freely and immediately available without charge and can thus be reused by third parties, since they are considered as a public good. In support of the principle of Open Access, the SNSF expects grantees to make the results of the research projects it has supported accessible to the public". This will concern almost all scientists in Switzerland. See: http://www.snf.ch/en/theSNSF/research-policies/open-access/Pages/default.as px Anne-Nelly Prof. em. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont Institut de psychologie et ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace L. Agassiz 1, CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (Switzerland) -----Message d'origine----- De : on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date : dimanche, 8 octobre 2017 13:31 ? : "xmca-l@ucsd.edu" , "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate That's a complex matter, Peter. Thanks for sharing. I wonder what the views of others are. I am still forming mine, but would like to contribute with another resource to do so, an article from The Guardian on profitable business scientific publishing https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scienti fic-publishing-bad-for-science Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Peter Smagorinsky Sent: 07 October 2017 17:31 To: xmca-l@ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/publishers-seek-removal-millions- papers-researchgate Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate Academic social network accused of infringing copyright on a massive scale Leading publishers are stepping up their fight against ResearchGate by ordering the academic social network to take down papers that they say infringe copyright. The move could see millions of articles removed from the site, as the publishers say up to 40 per cent of papers on ResearchGate are copyrighted. James Milne, a spokesman for the group of five academic publishers, which includes Elsevier, Wiley and Brill, said that the first batch of take-down notices would be sent "imminently". "We're not doing this in any way against the researchers, we're doing this against ResearchGate," he told Times Higher Education. The site was "clearly hosting and happily uploading material that they know they don't have the license or copyrights" to, and was "refusing to work with us to solve that problem", he added. According to a survey of academics released last year, Berlin-based ResearchGate is by some way the world's biggest academic social network, used by about 60 per cent of academics, particularly in the physical and life sciences, and has raised nearly $90 million (?68 million) in funding from investors, according to the website Crunchbase. Publishers are seeing "anecdotal" evidence that the availability of papers on the site is eating into their revenues, said Dr Milne. "We have heard during the subscriptions renewal process that librarians are occasionally referencing ResearchGate as an alternative to resubscribing to journals," he said. He attacked ResearchGate as being "backed by hundreds of millions of dollars [from venture capitalists,] who are seeking to make a profit from what [ResearchGate] do, which is upload copyright infringed material". "They put nothing back into the process for generating and validating and curating all that material," he said. The publisher Elsevier drew a backlash from many academics in 2013 when it told users of Academia.edu, a rival to ResearchGate, to take down papers to which it had rights. Dr Milne stressed that this time, the publishers would not directly send take-down notices to academics. "We will work with ResearchGate on this, not researchers," he said, although the organisation would be communicating "en masse" with academics about how they can share their work properly. But for the publishers, sending out mass take-down notices is not a permanent solution. "That in itself doesn't solve the problem, because every day ResearchGate is uploading more and more material," said Dr Milne, trapping publishers in a "perpetual loop" of having to identify infringing papers. He argued that this would be confusing for researchers, as "one day there's content, and the next day there isn't", he said. Elsevier and the American Chemical Society are therefore also taking ResearchGate to court where they hope to obtain a ruling that would stop ResearchGate "scraping content off the web, uploading it...and asking researchers to claim it" so that infringing material "is not in the public domain", he explained. The court claim would be lodged in Europe, he said. A ResearchGate spokeswoman declined to comment. The company's founder and chief executive, Ijad Madisch, has previously said that he "wouldn't mind" if copyrighted material was removed from the site, as researchers could continue to share papers privately. david.matthews@timeshighereducation.com From Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch Sun Oct 8 08:51:12 2017 From: Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch (PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 15:51:12 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate In-Reply-To: <1507469237581.2132@iped.uio.no> References: <1507462271698.29592@iped.uio.no> , , <1507469237581.2132@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Good to know! Thanks Alfredo Anne-Nelly Envoy? de mon iPhone Le 8 oct. 2017 ? 15:28, Alfredo Jornet Gil > a ?crit : Thanks Anne-Nelly, I used the feature to change to English and it worked perfectly, Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly > Sent: 08 October 2017 15:25 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; xmca-l@ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate Sorry the link in English is deficient . Try this one and then change the language by replacing "FR" by "EN" on the top/right of the screen: http://www.snf.ch/fr/leFNS/points-de-vue-politique-de-recherche/open-access /Pages/default.aspx Anne-Nelly -----Message d'origine----- De : > on behalf of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly > R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date : dimanche, 8 octobre 2017 15:19 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >, "xmca-l@ucsd.edu" > Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate Thanks for these very interesting links. The new political line of the Swiss National Research Foundation (SNSF) on these issues is very interesting: "The results of research financed by public funds should be published electronically so that they are freely and immediately available without charge and can thus be reused by third parties, since they are considered as a public good. In support of the principle of Open Access, the SNSF expects grantees to make the results of the research projects it has supported accessible to the public". This will concern almost all scientists in Switzerland. See: http://www.snf.ch/en/theSNSF/research-policies/open-access/Pages/default.as px Anne-Nelly Prof. em. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont Institut de psychologie et ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace L. Agassiz 1, CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (Switzerland) -----Message d'origine----- De : > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date : dimanche, 8 octobre 2017 13:31 ? : "xmca-l@ucsd.edu" >, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate That's a complex matter, Peter. Thanks for sharing. I wonder what the views of others are. I am still forming mine, but would like to contribute with another resource to do so, an article from The Guardian on profitable business scientific publishing https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scienti fic-publishing-bad-for-science Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Peter Smagorinsky > Sent: 07 October 2017 17:31 To: xmca-l@ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/publishers-seek-removal-millions- papers-researchgate Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate Academic social network accused of infringing copyright on a massive scale Leading publishers are stepping up their fight against ResearchGate by ordering the academic social network to take down papers that they say infringe copyright. The move could see millions of articles removed from the site, as the publishers say up to 40 per cent of papers on ResearchGate are copyrighted. James Milne, a spokesman for the group of five academic publishers, which includes Elsevier, Wiley and Brill, said that the first batch of take-down notices would be sent "imminently". "We're not doing this in any way against the researchers, we're doing this against ResearchGate," he told Times Higher Education. The site was "clearly hosting and happily uploading material that they know they don't have the license or copyrights" to, and was "refusing to work with us to solve that problem", he added. According to a survey of academics released last year, Berlin-based ResearchGate is by some way the world's biggest academic social network, used by about 60 per cent of academics, particularly in the physical and life sciences, and has raised nearly $90 million (?68 million) in funding from investors, according to the website Crunchbase. Publishers are seeing "anecdotal" evidence that the availability of papers on the site is eating into their revenues, said Dr Milne. "We have heard during the subscriptions renewal process that librarians are occasionally referencing ResearchGate as an alternative to resubscribing to journals," he said. He attacked ResearchGate as being "backed by hundreds of millions of dollars [from venture capitalists,] who are seeking to make a profit from what [ResearchGate] do, which is upload copyright infringed material". "They put nothing back into the process for generating and validating and curating all that material," he said. The publisher Elsevier drew a backlash from many academics in 2013 when it told users of Academia.edu, a rival to ResearchGate, to take down papers to which it had rights. Dr Milne stressed that this time, the publishers would not directly send take-down notices to academics. "We will work with ResearchGate on this, not researchers," he said, although the organisation would be communicating "en masse" with academics about how they can share their work properly. But for the publishers, sending out mass take-down notices is not a permanent solution. "That in itself doesn't solve the problem, because every day ResearchGate is uploading more and more material," said Dr Milne, trapping publishers in a "perpetual loop" of having to identify infringing papers. He argued that this would be confusing for researchers, as "one day there's content, and the next day there isn't", he said. Elsevier and the American Chemical Society are therefore also taking ResearchGate to court where they hope to obtain a ruling that would stop ResearchGate "scraping content off the web, uploading it...and asking researchers to claim it" so that infringing material "is not in the public domain", he explained. The court claim would be lodged in Europe, he said. A ResearchGate spokeswoman declined to comment. The company's founder and chief executive, Ijad Madisch, has previously said that he "wouldn't mind" if copyrighted material was removed from the site, as researchers could continue to share papers privately. david.matthews@timeshighereducation.com> From Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch Sun Oct 8 08:51:12 2017 From: Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch (PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 15:51:12 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate In-Reply-To: <1507469237581.2132@iped.uio.no> References: <1507462271698.29592@iped.uio.no> , , <1507469237581.2132@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Good to know! Thanks Alfredo Anne-Nelly Envoy? de mon iPhone Le 8 oct. 2017 ? 15:28, Alfredo Jornet Gil > a ?crit : Thanks Anne-Nelly, I used the feature to change to English and it worked perfectly, Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly > Sent: 08 October 2017 15:25 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; xmca-l@ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate Sorry the link in English is deficient . Try this one and then change the language by replacing "FR" by "EN" on the top/right of the screen: http://www.snf.ch/fr/leFNS/points-de-vue-politique-de-recherche/open-access /Pages/default.aspx Anne-Nelly -----Message d'origine----- De : > on behalf of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly > R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date : dimanche, 8 octobre 2017 15:19 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >, "xmca-l@ucsd.edu" > Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate Thanks for these very interesting links. The new political line of the Swiss National Research Foundation (SNSF) on these issues is very interesting: "The results of research financed by public funds should be published electronically so that they are freely and immediately available without charge and can thus be reused by third parties, since they are considered as a public good. In support of the principle of Open Access, the SNSF expects grantees to make the results of the research projects it has supported accessible to the public". This will concern almost all scientists in Switzerland. See: http://www.snf.ch/en/theSNSF/research-policies/open-access/Pages/default.as px Anne-Nelly Prof. em. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont Institut de psychologie et ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace L. Agassiz 1, CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (Switzerland) -----Message d'origine----- De : > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil > R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date : dimanche, 8 octobre 2017 13:31 ? : "xmca-l@ucsd.edu" >, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate That's a complex matter, Peter. Thanks for sharing. I wonder what the views of others are. I am still forming mine, but would like to contribute with another resource to do so, an article from The Guardian on profitable business scientific publishing https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scienti fic-publishing-bad-for-science Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Peter Smagorinsky > Sent: 07 October 2017 17:31 To: xmca-l@ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/publishers-seek-removal-millions- papers-researchgate Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate Academic social network accused of infringing copyright on a massive scale Leading publishers are stepping up their fight against ResearchGate by ordering the academic social network to take down papers that they say infringe copyright. The move could see millions of articles removed from the site, as the publishers say up to 40 per cent of papers on ResearchGate are copyrighted. James Milne, a spokesman for the group of five academic publishers, which includes Elsevier, Wiley and Brill, said that the first batch of take-down notices would be sent "imminently". "We're not doing this in any way against the researchers, we're doing this against ResearchGate," he told Times Higher Education. The site was "clearly hosting and happily uploading material that they know they don't have the license or copyrights" to, and was "refusing to work with us to solve that problem", he added. According to a survey of academics released last year, Berlin-based ResearchGate is by some way the world's biggest academic social network, used by about 60 per cent of academics, particularly in the physical and life sciences, and has raised nearly $90 million (?68 million) in funding from investors, according to the website Crunchbase. Publishers are seeing "anecdotal" evidence that the availability of papers on the site is eating into their revenues, said Dr Milne. "We have heard during the subscriptions renewal process that librarians are occasionally referencing ResearchGate as an alternative to resubscribing to journals," he said. He attacked ResearchGate as being "backed by hundreds of millions of dollars [from venture capitalists,] who are seeking to make a profit from what [ResearchGate] do, which is upload copyright infringed material". "They put nothing back into the process for generating and validating and curating all that material," he said. The publisher Elsevier drew a backlash from many academics in 2013 when it told users of Academia.edu, a rival to ResearchGate, to take down papers to which it had rights. Dr Milne stressed that this time, the publishers would not directly send take-down notices to academics. "We will work with ResearchGate on this, not researchers," he said, although the organisation would be communicating "en masse" with academics about how they can share their work properly. But for the publishers, sending out mass take-down notices is not a permanent solution. "That in itself doesn't solve the problem, because every day ResearchGate is uploading more and more material," said Dr Milne, trapping publishers in a "perpetual loop" of having to identify infringing papers. He argued that this would be confusing for researchers, as "one day there's content, and the next day there isn't", he said. Elsevier and the American Chemical Society are therefore also taking ResearchGate to court where they hope to obtain a ruling that would stop ResearchGate "scraping content off the web, uploading it...and asking researchers to claim it" so that infringing material "is not in the public domain", he explained. The court claim would be lodged in Europe, he said. A ResearchGate spokeswoman declined to comment. The company's founder and chief executive, Ijad Madisch, has previously said that he "wouldn't mind" if copyrighted material was removed from the site, as researchers could continue to share papers privately. david.matthews@timeshighereducation.com> From glassman.13@osu.edu Sun Oct 8 09:56:13 2017 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 16:56:13 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate In-Reply-To: References: <1507462271698.29592@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F93888181D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX05.osuad.osu.edu> The trouble we are facing is that ademia.edu and researchgate are not organizations that were formed to serve the public good. They will only function as Open Educational Resources as long as it suits their needs. They are instead being funded by large amounts of venture capital. Eventually these people are going to want their profits. What is scary is we cannot know what this means. What happened with Facebook and the election is the canary in the coal mine (much bigger than a canary though). For those who don't know what happened not so good sources used targeted advertising of Facebook, and my guess is Google as well, to manipulate outcomes. Targeted advertising is when you discuss a trip to Bahamas in a gmail discussion and then the next time you log on to gmail there is an advertisement for a hotel in the Bahamas. Up to now it has been freaky but not really dangerous. There is not much discussion of exactly what happened other than Russian (and my guess is other groups) used targeted advertising. A guess how that happened. People all over the country were talking about Hillary Clinton's emails in the last few weeks of the campaign. Facebook is able to aggregate the people who were actually talking about this on their Facebook pages. They are also able to locate them according to region. Organizations then use this information to target people specifically in swing states with advertisements that are disguised as news items. So on Monday you write a comment, "I really wonder what is going on with Hillary's emails" and on Tuesday you get a directed advertisement with claims what is happening with Hillary's emails that claims legitimacy. This is incredibly powerful. Mark Zuckerberg the founder of Facebook as said he won't allow this to happen again (at first he denied it) but I'm not so sure how. Targeted advertising is how Facebook and Google make a lot of their money. I worry about the things academia.edu and researchgate.net might do (full disclosure, I am on both because they are becoming the only way to reach many fellow researchers). What happens when the funds that have been feeding them money demand their profit? Nobody would have predicted what happened with targeted advertising. How will research dissemination be manipulated? I don't know what the solution to this is but we need to be very careful. I question why universities did not step into the breach, to create Open Educational Resources that were not beholden to profit. It's not like they didn't know this was coming and OER was a possibility. Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2017 9:20 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; xmca-l@ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate Thanks for these very interesting links. The new political line of the Swiss National Research Foundation (SNSF) on these issues is very interesting: "The results of research financed by public funds should be published electronically so that they are freely and immediately available without charge and can thus be reused by third parties, since they are considered as a public good. In support of the principle of Open Access, the SNSF expects grantees to make the results of the research projects it has supported accessible to the public". This will concern almost all scientists in Switzerland. See: http://www.snf.ch/en/theSNSF/research-policies/open-access/Pages/default.as px Anne-Nelly Prof. em. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont Institut de psychologie et ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace L. Agassiz 1, CH- 2000 Neuch?tel (Switzerland) -----Message d'origine----- De : on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date : dimanche, 8 octobre 2017 13:31 ? : "xmca-l@ucsd.edu" , "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate That's a complex matter, Peter. Thanks for sharing. I wonder what the views of others are. I am still forming mine, but would like to contribute with another resource to do so, an article from The Guardian on profitable business scientific publishing https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scienti fic-publishing-bad-for-science Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Peter Smagorinsky Sent: 07 October 2017 17:31 To: xmca-l@ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/publishers-seek-removal-millions- papers-researchgate Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate Academic social network accused of infringing copyright on a massive scale Leading publishers are stepping up their fight against ResearchGate by ordering the academic social network to take down papers that they say infringe copyright. The move could see millions of articles removed from the site, as the publishers say up to 40 per cent of papers on ResearchGate are copyrighted. James Milne, a spokesman for the group of five academic publishers, which includes Elsevier, Wiley and Brill, said that the first batch of take-down notices would be sent "imminently". "We're not doing this in any way against the researchers, we're doing this against ResearchGate," he told Times Higher Education. The site was "clearly hosting and happily uploading material that they know they don't have the license or copyrights" to, and was "refusing to work with us to solve that problem", he added. According to a survey of academics released last year, Berlin-based ResearchGate is by some way the world's biggest academic social network, used by about 60 per cent of academics, particularly in the physical and life sciences, and has raised nearly $90 million (?68 million) in funding from investors, according to the website Crunchbase. Publishers are seeing "anecdotal" evidence that the availability of papers on the site is eating into their revenues, said Dr Milne. "We have heard during the subscriptions renewal process that librarians are occasionally referencing ResearchGate as an alternative to resubscribing to journals," he said. He attacked ResearchGate as being "backed by hundreds of millions of dollars [from venture capitalists,] who are seeking to make a profit from what [ResearchGate] do, which is upload copyright infringed material". "They put nothing back into the process for generating and validating and curating all that material," he said. The publisher Elsevier drew a backlash from many academics in 2013 when it told users of Academia.edu, a rival to ResearchGate, to take down papers to which it had rights. Dr Milne stressed that this time, the publishers would not directly send take-down notices to academics. "We will work with ResearchGate on this, not researchers," he said, although the organisation would be communicating "en masse" with academics about how they can share their work properly. But for the publishers, sending out mass take-down notices is not a permanent solution. "That in itself doesn't solve the problem, because every day ResearchGate is uploading more and more material," said Dr Milne, trapping publishers in a "perpetual loop" of having to identify infringing papers. He argued that this would be confusing for researchers, as "one day there's content, and the next day there isn't", he said. Elsevier and the American Chemical Society are therefore also taking ResearchGate to court where they hope to obtain a ruling that would stop ResearchGate "scraping content off the web, uploading it...and asking researchers to claim it" so that infringing material "is not in the public domain", he explained. The court claim would be lodged in Europe, he said. A ResearchGate spokeswoman declined to comment. The company's founder and chief executive, Ijad Madisch, has previously said that he "wouldn't mind" if copyrighted material was removed from the site, as researchers could continue to share papers privately. david.matthews@timeshighereducation.com From mcole@ucsd.edu Sun Oct 8 13:18:29 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 13:18:29 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] job posting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Peverly, Stephen Date: Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 10:49 AM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] job posting To: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org We are seeking an excellent scholar to fill an open rank position in the School Psychology Program at Teachers College, Columbia University. The link for the position is http://employment.tc.columbia. edu/cw/en-us/job/500606/professor-of-school-psychology All the best--Steve Peverly -- Stephen T. Peverly, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology and Education Director, Ph.D. Program in School Psychology College Ombuds 212-678-3084 (phone) 212-678-4034 (fax) _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org From mcole@ucsd.edu Sun Oct 8 13:35:22 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 13:35:22 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F93888181D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX05.osuad.osu.edu> References: <1507462271698.29592@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F93888181D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX05.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Alfredo, Anne Nelly et al --- The difficulties to accessing academic research at play in this discussion motivates my long time treatment of xlchc/xmca as an *educational * facility. If you check out the cluster map of xmca that tells you where people are connecting from, it gives you are pretty good idea of who has interest and access. ( https://clustrmaps.com/site/17i ) A LOT of those visitors do not have access to the articles, never mind the books, that we seek to discuss here in order to educate ourselves and our students in fundamental questions about human development in its cultural, historical, social contexts. If we do not post such materials, we are sealed off from each other as in the past. Lets hope that going forward, MCA and this discussion group can hold itself together as an educational community sufficiently to ward off the digital overseers. Its not clear how to get to open access, but this has been lchc's way of trying. mike On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > The trouble we are facing is that ademia.edu and researchgate are not > organizations that were formed to serve the public good. They will only > function as Open Educational Resources as long as it suits their needs. > They are instead being funded by large amounts of venture capital. > Eventually these people are going to want their profits. What is scary is > we cannot know what this means. What happened with Facebook and the > election is the canary in the coal mine (much bigger than a canary > though). For those who don't know what happened not so good sources used > targeted advertising of Facebook, and my guess is Google as well, to > manipulate outcomes. Targeted advertising is when you discuss a trip to > Bahamas in a gmail discussion and then the next time you log on to gmail > there is an advertisement for a hotel in the Bahamas. Up to now it has been > freaky but not really dangerous. There is not much discussion of exactly > what happened other than Russian (and my guess is other groups) used > targeted advertising. A guess how that happened. People all over the > country were talking about Hillary Clinton's emails in the last few weeks > of the campaign. Facebook is able to aggregate the people who were actually > talking about this on their Facebook pages. They are also able to locate > them according to region. Organizations then use this information to target > people specifically in swing states with advertisements that are disguised > as news items. So on Monday you write a comment, "I really wonder what is > going on with Hillary's emails" and on Tuesday you get a directed > advertisement with claims what is happening with Hillary's emails that > claims legitimacy. This is incredibly powerful. Mark Zuckerberg the > founder of Facebook as said he won't allow this to happen again (at first > he denied it) but I'm not so sure how. Targeted advertising is how > Facebook and Google make a lot of their money. > > I worry about the things academia.edu and researchgate.net might do (full > disclosure, I am on both because they are becoming the only way to reach > many fellow researchers). What happens when the funds that have been > feeding them money demand their profit? Nobody would have predicted what > happened with targeted advertising. How will research dissemination be > manipulated? I don't know what the solution to this is but we need to be > very careful. > > I question why universities did not step into the breach, to create Open > Educational Resources that were not beholden to profit. It's not like they > didn't know this was coming and OER was a possibility. > > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly > Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2017 9:20 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; > xmca-l@ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from > ResearchGate > > Thanks for these very interesting links. > > The new political line of the Swiss National Research Foundation (SNSF) on > these issues is very interesting: > "The results of research financed by public funds should be published > electronically so that they are freely and immediately available without > charge and can thus be reused by third parties, since they are considered > as a public good. In support of the principle of Open Access, the SNSF > expects grantees to make the results of the research projects it has > supported accessible to the public". > This will concern almost all scientists in Switzerland. See: > > http://www.snf.ch/en/theSNSF/research-policies/open-access/ > Pages/default.as > px > > Anne-Nelly > > > Prof. em. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont > Institut de psychologie et ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences > humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace L. Agassiz 1, CH- 2000 Neuch?tel > (Switzerland) perret_clermont> > > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil < > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> Date : dimanche, 8 octobre 2017 13:31 ? : " > xmca-l@ucsd.edu" , "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of > millions of > papers from ResearchGate > > That's a complex matter, Peter. Thanks for sharing. I wonder what the > views of others are. I am still forming mine, but would like to contribute > with another resource to do so, an article from The Guardian on profitable > business scientific publishing > > https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/ > profitable-business-scienti > fic-publishing-bad-for-science > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Peter Smagorinsky > Sent: 07 October 2017 17:31 > To: xmca-l@ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from > ResearchGate > > https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/publishers-seek-removal- > millions- > papers-researchgate > > > > Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate > > Academic social network accused of infringing copyright on a massive scale > > Leading publishers are stepping up their fight against ResearchGate by > ordering the academic social network to take down papers that they say > infringe copyright. > > The move could see millions of articles removed from the site, as the > publishers say up to 40 per cent of papers on ResearchGate are copyrighted. > > James Milne, a spokesman for the group of five academic publishers, which > includes Elsevier, Wiley and Brill, said that the first batch of take-down > notices would be sent "imminently". > > > > "We're not doing this in any way against the researchers, we're doing this > against ResearchGate," he told Times Higher Education. The site was > "clearly hosting and happily uploading material that they know they don't > have the license or copyrights" to, and was "refusing to work with us to > solve that problem", he added. > > > > According to a survey of academics released last year, Berlin-based > ResearchGate is by some way the world's biggest academic social network, > used by about 60 per cent of academics, particularly in the physical and > life sciences, and has raised nearly $90 million (?68 million) in funding > from investors, according to the website Crunchbase. > > > > Publishers are seeing "anecdotal" evidence that the availability of papers > on the site is eating into their revenues, said Dr Milne. "We have heard > during the subscriptions renewal process that librarians are occasionally > referencing ResearchGate as an alternative to resubscribing to journals," > he said. > > > > He attacked ResearchGate as being "backed by hundreds of millions of > dollars [from venture capitalists,] who are seeking to make a profit from > what [ResearchGate] do, which is upload copyright infringed material". > > > > "They put nothing back into the process for generating and validating and > curating all that material," he said. > > > > The publisher Elsevier drew a backlash from many academics in 2013 when it > told users of Academia.edu, a rival to ResearchGate, to take down papers to > which it had rights. Dr Milne stressed that this time, the publishers would > not directly send take-down notices to academics. "We will work with > ResearchGate on this, not researchers," he said, although the organisation > would be communicating "en masse" with academics about how they can share > their work properly. > > > > But for the publishers, sending out mass take-down notices is not a > permanent solution. "That in itself doesn't solve the problem, because > every day ResearchGate is uploading more and more material," said Dr Milne, > trapping publishers in a "perpetual loop" of having to identify infringing > papers. He argued that this would be confusing for researchers, as "one day > there's content, and the next day there isn't", he said. > > > > Elsevier and the American Chemical Society are therefore also taking > ResearchGate to court where they hope to obtain a ruling that would stop > ResearchGate "scraping content off the web, uploading it...and asking > researchers to claim it" so that infringing material "is not in the public > domain", he explained. The court claim would be lodged in Europe, he said. > > > > A ResearchGate spokeswoman declined to comment. The company's founder and > chief executive, Ijad Madisch, has previously said that he "wouldn't mind" > if copyrighted material was removed from the site, as researchers could > continue to share papers privately. > > > > david.matthews@timeshighereducation.com timeshighered > ucation.com> > > > > > From bazerman@education.ucsb.edu Sun Oct 8 13:50:33 2017 From: bazerman@education.ucsb.edu (Charles Bazerman) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 13:50:33 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate In-Reply-To: References: <1507462271698.29592@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F93888181D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX05.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: What I am finding hard to figure out from the stories I have seen is whether Elsevier, Springer, et al are going after only items in the embargo period (which was two years, but I believe now is shorter) or they are going after all items, essentially eliminating the embargo. Does anyone know which is the case? Chuck On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 1:35 PM, mike cole wrote: > Alfredo, Anne Nelly et al --- > > The difficulties to accessing academic research at play in this discussion > motivates my long time treatment of xlchc/xmca as an *educational * > facility. > If you check out the cluster map of xmca that tells you where people are > connecting from, it gives you are pretty good idea of who has interest and > access. ( https://clustrmaps.com/site/17i ) > > A LOT of those visitors do not have access to the articles, never mind the > books, that we seek to discuss here in order to educate ourselves and our > students in fundamental questions about human development in its cultural, > historical, social contexts. If we do not post such materials, we are > sealed off from each other as in the past. > > Lets hope that going forward, MCA and this discussion group can hold itself > together as an educational community sufficiently to ward off the digital > overseers. > > Its not clear how to get to open access, but this has been lchc's way of > trying. > > mike > > On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Glassman, Michael > wrote: > > > The trouble we are facing is that ademia.edu and researchgate are not > > organizations that were formed to serve the public good. They will only > > function as Open Educational Resources as long as it suits their needs. > > They are instead being funded by large amounts of venture capital. > > Eventually these people are going to want their profits. What is scary > is > > we cannot know what this means. What happened with Facebook and the > > election is the canary in the coal mine (much bigger than a canary > > though). For those who don't know what happened not so good sources used > > targeted advertising of Facebook, and my guess is Google as well, to > > manipulate outcomes. Targeted advertising is when you discuss a trip to > > Bahamas in a gmail discussion and then the next time you log on to gmail > > there is an advertisement for a hotel in the Bahamas. Up to now it has > been > > freaky but not really dangerous. There is not much discussion of exactly > > what happened other than Russian (and my guess is other groups) used > > targeted advertising. A guess how that happened. People all over the > > country were talking about Hillary Clinton's emails in the last few weeks > > of the campaign. Facebook is able to aggregate the people who were > actually > > talking about this on their Facebook pages. They are also able to locate > > them according to region. Organizations then use this information to > target > > people specifically in swing states with advertisements that are > disguised > > as news items. So on Monday you write a comment, "I really wonder what is > > going on with Hillary's emails" and on Tuesday you get a directed > > advertisement with claims what is happening with Hillary's emails that > > claims legitimacy. This is incredibly powerful. Mark Zuckerberg the > > founder of Facebook as said he won't allow this to happen again (at first > > he denied it) but I'm not so sure how. Targeted advertising is how > > Facebook and Google make a lot of their money. > > > > I worry about the things academia.edu and researchgate.net might do > (full > > disclosure, I am on both because they are becoming the only way to reach > > many fellow researchers). What happens when the funds that have been > > feeding them money demand their profit? Nobody would have predicted what > > happened with targeted advertising. How will research dissemination be > > manipulated? I don't know what the solution to this is but we need to be > > very careful. > > > > I question why universities did not step into the breach, to create Open > > Educational Resources that were not beholden to profit. It's not like > they > > didn't know this was coming and OER was a possibility. > > > > > > Michael > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ > > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly > > Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2017 9:20 AM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; > > xmca-l@ucsd.edu > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from > > ResearchGate > > > > Thanks for these very interesting links. > > > > The new political line of the Swiss National Research Foundation (SNSF) > on > > these issues is very interesting: > > "The results of research financed by public funds should be published > > electronically so that they are freely and immediately available without > > charge and can thus be reused by third parties, since they are considered > > as a public good. In support of the principle of Open Access, the SNSF > > expects grantees to make the results of the research projects it has > > supported accessible to the public". > > This will concern almost all scientists in Switzerland. See: > > > > http://www.snf.ch/en/theSNSF/research-policies/open-access/ > > Pages/default.as > > px > > > > Anne-Nelly > > > > > > Prof. em. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont > > Institut de psychologie et ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences > > humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace L. Agassiz 1, CH- 2000 Neuch?tel > > (Switzerland) > perret_clermont> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil < > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < > > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> Date : dimanche, 8 octobre 2017 13:31 ? : " > > xmca-l@ucsd.edu" , "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < > > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of > > millions of > > papers from ResearchGate > > > > That's a complex matter, Peter. Thanks for sharing. I wonder what the > > views of others are. I am still forming mine, but would like to > contribute > > with another resource to do so, an article from The Guardian on > profitable > > business scientific publishing > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/ > > profitable-business-scienti > > fic-publishing-bad-for-science > > > > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > on behalf of Peter Smagorinsky > > Sent: 07 October 2017 17:31 > > To: xmca-l@ucsd.edu > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from > > ResearchGate > > > > https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/publishers-seek-removal- > > millions- > > papers-researchgate > > > > > > > > Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate > > > > Academic social network accused of infringing copyright on a massive > scale > > > > Leading publishers are stepping up their fight against ResearchGate by > > ordering the academic social network to take down papers that they say > > infringe copyright. > > > > The move could see millions of articles removed from the site, as the > > publishers say up to 40 per cent of papers on ResearchGate are > copyrighted. > > > > James Milne, a spokesman for the group of five academic publishers, which > > includes Elsevier, Wiley and Brill, said that the first batch of > take-down > > notices would be sent "imminently". > > > > > > > > "We're not doing this in any way against the researchers, we're doing > this > > against ResearchGate," he told Times Higher Education. The site was > > "clearly hosting and happily uploading material that they know they don't > > have the license or copyrights" to, and was "refusing to work with us to > > solve that problem", he added. > > > > > > > > According to a survey of academics released last year, Berlin-based > > ResearchGate is by some way the world's biggest academic social network, > > used by about 60 per cent of academics, particularly in the physical and > > life sciences, and has raised nearly $90 million (?68 million) in funding > > from investors, according to the website Crunchbase. > > > > > > > > Publishers are seeing "anecdotal" evidence that the availability of > papers > > on the site is eating into their revenues, said Dr Milne. "We have heard > > during the subscriptions renewal process that librarians are occasionally > > referencing ResearchGate as an alternative to resubscribing to journals," > > he said. > > > > > > > > He attacked ResearchGate as being "backed by hundreds of millions of > > dollars [from venture capitalists,] who are seeking to make a profit from > > what [ResearchGate] do, which is upload copyright infringed material". > > > > > > > > "They put nothing back into the process for generating and validating and > > curating all that material," he said. > > > > > > > > The publisher Elsevier drew a backlash from many academics in 2013 when > it > > told users of Academia.edu, a rival to ResearchGate, to take down papers > to > > which it had rights. Dr Milne stressed that this time, the publishers > would > > not directly send take-down notices to academics. "We will work with > > ResearchGate on this, not researchers," he said, although the > organisation > > would be communicating "en masse" with academics about how they can share > > their work properly. > > > > > > > > But for the publishers, sending out mass take-down notices is not a > > permanent solution. "That in itself doesn't solve the problem, because > > every day ResearchGate is uploading more and more material," said Dr > Milne, > > trapping publishers in a "perpetual loop" of having to identify > infringing > > papers. He argued that this would be confusing for researchers, as "one > day > > there's content, and the next day there isn't", he said. > > > > > > > > Elsevier and the American Chemical Society are therefore also taking > > ResearchGate to court where they hope to obtain a ruling that would stop > > ResearchGate "scraping content off the web, uploading it...and asking > > researchers to claim it" so that infringing material "is not in the > public > > domain", he explained. The court claim would be lodged in Europe, he > said. > > > > > > > > A ResearchGate spokeswoman declined to comment. The company's founder and > > chief executive, Ijad Madisch, has previously said that he "wouldn't > mind" > > if copyrighted material was removed from the site, as researchers could > > continue to share papers privately. > > > > > > > > david.matthews@timeshighereducation.com > timeshighered > > ucation.com> > > > > > > > > > > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Sun Oct 8 21:19:14 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 21:19:14 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] tenure-track position in Child Cognitive Development in HDFS at Virginia Tech In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jobs galore it seems. mike ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bell, Martha Ann Date: Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 6:51 PM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] tenure-track position in Child Cognitive Development in HDFS at Virginia Tech To: "cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org" My original email had the wrong position #. I have corrected my error with this current posting. Martha Ann Bell *Assistant Professor, Child and Adolescent Development* *Department of Human Development and Family Science* *College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences* *Virginia Tech* *(Position #0F0460)* The Department of Human Development and Family Science invites applications for an academic year, tenure-track Assistant Professor in the Child and Adolescent Development area with a Ph.D. in Human Development and Family Science, Psychology, Education, or a related field at the time of appointment. Applicants should have expertise in child cognitive development. Opportunities are available to interact with faculty in Virginia Tech?s transdisciplinary initiatives focused on Adaptive Brain and Behavior as well as Equity and Social Disparity in the Human Condition. The starting date is August 10, 2018. Review of applications will begin December 1, 2017 and will continue until a suitable candidate is appointed. *Required* - Ph.D. in Human Development and Family Science, Psychology, Education, or a related field at the time of appointment - Expertise in cognitive development in infancy, early childhood, and/or middle childhood *Preferred* - An interest in studying relationships among human behaviors and social environments as they affect children?s cognitive development - An interdisciplinary perspective that integrates a variety of methodological approaches and theories from related disciplines, such as developmental science, behavioral science, cognitive/behavioral neuroscience, or computational science - Demonstrated experience with interdisciplinary research and/or teaching in areas that align with Virginia Tech?s university-wide, multi-disciplinary initiative focused on Adaptive Brain and Behavior ( https://provost.vt.edu/destination-areas/da-overview/da-brain.html ) and Equity and Social Disparity in the Human Condition ( http://inclusive.vt.edu/ESDHC.html ) *Responsibilities Include the Following:* ? Maintain a program of externally funded research and publications ? Advise students at the undergraduate and graduate levels, including directing master?s theses and doctoral dissertations ? Teach graduate and undergraduate courses; standard teaching load is two courses per each of the two semesters of the academic year ? Serve on departmental, college, and university committees *About the Department of Human Development and Family Science* *(http://www.liberalarts.vt.edu/hdfs )* The Department of Human Development and Family Science, in the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences, has programs that cover the human life cycle. Currently there are approximately 700 undergraduate and 50 graduate HDFS students on the Blacksburg campus. There are 31 faculty, instructors, and research associates in the department. The department houses three centers on the Blacksburg campus: The Child Development Center for Learning and Research, Adult Day Services, and the Family Therapy Center. In the last 12 years, the Department of Human Development and Family Science has twice won the university's Exemplary Department Award. *About the Child Development Center for Learning and Research (http://www.humandevelopment.vt.edu/CDCLR/cdclr.html ) * The Child Development Center for Learning and Research (CDCLR) is a top-rated, licensed early childhood education center that serves as a research, teaching, and observational learning site for Virginia Tech faculty and students. The Center serves 45 children ages 15 months to five years and their families, who represent a wide range of national and linguistic backgrounds. The Center is accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children and holds the highest rating from the Virginia Quality (QRIS) system. Research, teaching and administrative faculty and staff are active leaders in state quality improvement initiatives through program evaluation, needs assessments, and professional development training and mentoring. The research director facilitates new and existing faculty affiliation with the Center to promote research in child development and early childhood education, with regular partnerships with faculty in HDFS, Psychology, Education, and Engineering. The Center collaborates with the adjacent Adult Day Services Center in a ?Neighbors Growing Together? intergenerational activities program and with local and state community stakeholders invested in advancing knowledge about and best practices in early childhood education and family development. *About the Adaptive Brain and Behavior Destination Area (https://provost.vt.edu/destination-areas/da-overview/da-brain.html )* The Adaptive Brain and Behavior Destination Area is focused on the transdisciplinary study of brain plasticity, particularly as it pertains to decision-making, physical and psychological trauma, and healthy development across the lifespan. Faculty are working together in this area to build understanding of the brain-behavior relationship in health and the human condition to enhance resilience and well-being in the world?s diverse communities. *About Equity and Social Disparity in the Human Condition (http://inclusive.vt.edu/ESDHC.html )* The Equity and Social Disparity in the Human Condition Strategic Growth Area focuses on bringing attention to challenges related to equity in the human condition to all of the transdisciplinary curricular, research, and engagement initiatives evolving at Virginia Tech. Faculty working together in this area are focused on maximizing the equitable distribution and availability of physical safety and wellbeing, psychological well-being, and access to crucial material, social, and moral resources throughout the world?s diverse communities. *About Virginia Tech (**http://www.vt.edu/* *)* Virginia Tech, founded in 1872 as a land-grant institution, is currently ranked as a Top 25 Public University by US News & World Report and a Top 25 Public Research University by the National Science Foundation. Through its three missions of learning, discovery, and engagement, Virginia Tech continually strives to accomplish the charge of its motto: Ut Prosim (That I May Serve). As the Commonwealth?s most comprehensive university and its leading research institution, Virginia Tech serves a diverse population of 30,000+ students and 8,000+ faculty and staff from over 100 countries and is engaged in research globally. Virginia Tech was ranked No. 9 on a list of "The Top 25 Universities To Work For in 2014 ," by Glassdoor.com. To apply, go to http://listings.jobs.vt.edu/postings/80334 and complete the on-line application. You will be asked to provide brief demographic information and to upload a cover letter describing qualifications and relevant experience in teaching and research, along with your CV. Applicants are required to include contact information for three (3) references. If you have specific questions, please contact Professor Cindy Smith, Ph.D., Chairperson, Child and Adolescent Development Search Committee, at 540-231-4793 or smithcl@vt.edu. Individuals with disabilities desiring accommodations for the application process should notify University ADA Services Voice: 540-231-4638, TTY: 540-231-7227, adainfo@vt.edu. The Department of Human Development and Family Science seeks to be an inclusive community. We recognize that diversity enlivens the exchange of ideas, broadens scholarship, and contributes to just engagement in all the world?s communities. Virginia Tech does not discriminate against employees, students, or applicants on the basis of age, color, disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, national origin, political affiliation, race, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, or veteran status; or otherwise discriminate against employees or applicants who inquire about, discuss, or disclose their compensation or the compensation of other employees, or applicants; or any other basis protected by law? (http://www.vt.edu/about/ equal-opportunity.html). For inquiries regarding non-discrimination policies, contact the Office of Equity and Access at 540-231-2010 or Virginia Tech, North End Center, Suite 2300 (0318), 300 Turner St. NW, Blacksburg, VA 24061. *___________________________________* *Martha Ann Bell, Professor* *Dept of Psychology, 333 Williams Hall* *890 Drillfield Drive, Virginia Tech* *Blacksburg, VA 24061 * *540-231-2546 * *http://www.psyc.vt.edu/labs/caplab* _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 8741 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171008/cd091a24/attachment.png From Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch Mon Oct 9 00:50:55 2017 From: Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch (PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 07:50:55 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate In-Reply-To: References: <1507462271698.29592@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F93888181D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX05.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Mike has someone written the history of LCHC and xmca and of its pioneering technical/socio-cultural "educational" innovations? Xmcy was the first electronic list I ever signed up to. Anne-Nelly -----Message d'origine----- De : on behalf of mike cole R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date : dimanche, 8 octobre 2017 22:35 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate Alfredo, Anne Nelly et al --- The difficulties to accessing academic research at play in this discussion motivates my long time treatment of xlchc/xmca as an *educational * facility. If you check out the cluster map of xmca that tells you where people are connecting from, it gives you are pretty good idea of who has interest and access. ( https://clustrmaps.com/site/17i ) A LOT of those visitors do not have access to the articles, never mind the books, that we seek to discuss here in order to educate ourselves and our students in fundamental questions about human development in its cultural, historical, social contexts. If we do not post such materials, we are sealed off from each other as in the past. Lets hope that going forward, MCA and this discussion group can hold itself together as an educational community sufficiently to ward off the digital overseers. Its not clear how to get to open access, but this has been lchc's way of trying. mike On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > The trouble we are facing is that ademia.edu and researchgate are not > organizations that were formed to serve the public good. They will only > function as Open Educational Resources as long as it suits their needs. > They are instead being funded by large amounts of venture capital. > Eventually these people are going to want their profits. What is scary >is > we cannot know what this means. What happened with Facebook and the > election is the canary in the coal mine (much bigger than a canary > though). For those who don't know what happened not so good sources used > targeted advertising of Facebook, and my guess is Google as well, to > manipulate outcomes. Targeted advertising is when you discuss a trip to > Bahamas in a gmail discussion and then the next time you log on to gmail > there is an advertisement for a hotel in the Bahamas. Up to now it has >been > freaky but not really dangerous. There is not much discussion of exactly > what happened other than Russian (and my guess is other groups) used > targeted advertising. A guess how that happened. People all over the > country were talking about Hillary Clinton's emails in the last few weeks > of the campaign. Facebook is able to aggregate the people who were >actually > talking about this on their Facebook pages. They are also able to locate > them according to region. Organizations then use this information to >target > people specifically in swing states with advertisements that are >disguised > as news items. So on Monday you write a comment, "I really wonder what is > going on with Hillary's emails" and on Tuesday you get a directed > advertisement with claims what is happening with Hillary's emails that > claims legitimacy. This is incredibly powerful. Mark Zuckerberg the > founder of Facebook as said he won't allow this to happen again (at first > he denied it) but I'm not so sure how. Targeted advertising is how > Facebook and Google make a lot of their money. > > I worry about the things academia.edu and researchgate.net might do (full > disclosure, I am on both because they are becoming the only way to reach > many fellow researchers). What happens when the funds that have been > feeding them money demand their profit? Nobody would have predicted what > happened with targeted advertising. How will research dissemination be > manipulated? I don't know what the solution to this is but we need to be > very careful. > > I question why universities did not step into the breach, to create Open > Educational Resources that were not beholden to profit. It's not like >they > didn't know this was coming and OER was a possibility. > > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly > Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2017 9:20 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; > xmca-l@ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from > ResearchGate > > Thanks for these very interesting links. > > The new political line of the Swiss National Research Foundation (SNSF) >on > these issues is very interesting: > "The results of research financed by public funds should be published > electronically so that they are freely and immediately available without > charge and can thus be reused by third parties, since they are considered > as a public good. In support of the principle of Open Access, the SNSF > expects grantees to make the results of the research projects it has > supported accessible to the public". > This will concern almost all scientists in Switzerland. See: > > http://www.snf.ch/en/theSNSF/research-policies/open-access/ > Pages/default.as > px > > Anne-Nelly > > > Prof. em. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont > Institut de psychologie et ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences > humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace L. Agassiz 1, CH- 2000 Neuch?tel > (Switzerland) perret_clermont> > > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil < > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> Date : dimanche, 8 octobre 2017 13:31 ? : " > xmca-l@ucsd.edu" , "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of > millions of > papers from ResearchGate > > That's a complex matter, Peter. Thanks for sharing. I wonder what the > views of others are. I am still forming mine, but would like to >contribute > with another resource to do so, an article from The Guardian on >profitable > business scientific publishing > > https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/ > profitable-business-scienti > fic-publishing-bad-for-science > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Peter Smagorinsky > Sent: 07 October 2017 17:31 > To: xmca-l@ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from > ResearchGate > > https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/publishers-seek-removal- > millions- > papers-researchgate > > > > Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate > > Academic social network accused of infringing copyright on a massive >scale > > Leading publishers are stepping up their fight against ResearchGate by > ordering the academic social network to take down papers that they say > infringe copyright. > > The move could see millions of articles removed from the site, as the > publishers say up to 40 per cent of papers on ResearchGate are >copyrighted. > > James Milne, a spokesman for the group of five academic publishers, which > includes Elsevier, Wiley and Brill, said that the first batch of >take-down > notices would be sent "imminently". > > > > "We're not doing this in any way against the researchers, we're doing >this > against ResearchGate," he told Times Higher Education. The site was > "clearly hosting and happily uploading material that they know they don't > have the license or copyrights" to, and was "refusing to work with us to > solve that problem", he added. > > > > According to a survey of academics released last year, Berlin-based > ResearchGate is by some way the world's biggest academic social network, > used by about 60 per cent of academics, particularly in the physical and > life sciences, and has raised nearly $90 million (?68 million) in funding > from investors, according to the website Crunchbase. > > > > Publishers are seeing "anecdotal" evidence that the availability of >papers > on the site is eating into their revenues, said Dr Milne. "We have heard > during the subscriptions renewal process that librarians are occasionally > referencing ResearchGate as an alternative to resubscribing to journals," > he said. > > > > He attacked ResearchGate as being "backed by hundreds of millions of > dollars [from venture capitalists,] who are seeking to make a profit from > what [ResearchGate] do, which is upload copyright infringed material". > > > > "They put nothing back into the process for generating and validating and > curating all that material," he said. > > > > The publisher Elsevier drew a backlash from many academics in 2013 when >it > told users of Academia.edu, a rival to ResearchGate, to take down papers >to > which it had rights. Dr Milne stressed that this time, the publishers >would > not directly send take-down notices to academics. "We will work with > ResearchGate on this, not researchers," he said, although the >organisation > would be communicating "en masse" with academics about how they can share > their work properly. > > > > But for the publishers, sending out mass take-down notices is not a > permanent solution. "That in itself doesn't solve the problem, because > every day ResearchGate is uploading more and more material," said Dr >Milne, > trapping publishers in a "perpetual loop" of having to identify >infringing > papers. He argued that this would be confusing for researchers, as "one >day > there's content, and the next day there isn't", he said. > > > > Elsevier and the American Chemical Society are therefore also taking > ResearchGate to court where they hope to obtain a ruling that would stop > ResearchGate "scraping content off the web, uploading it...and asking > researchers to claim it" so that infringing material "is not in the >public > domain", he explained. The court claim would be lodged in Europe, he >said. > > > > A ResearchGate spokeswoman declined to comment. The company's founder and > chief executive, Ijad Madisch, has previously said that he "wouldn't >mind" > if copyrighted material was removed from the site, as researchers could > continue to share papers privately. > > > > david.matthews@timeshighereducation.com timeshighered > ucation.com> > > > > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 9 07:01:21 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 07:01:21 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] We need a director - really a chair - of the School of Education In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Roberta Golinkoff Date: Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 2:52 PM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] We need a director - really a chair - of the School of Education To: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org Consider throwing your hat in the ring if you have some administrative experience and are eager to make a difference in education. We are looking for a vital and committed scholar. All best, Roberta -- Roberta Michnick Golinkoff, Ph. D. Unidel H. Rodney Sharp Professor Author of *Becoming Brilliant: What Science Tells us About Raising Successful Children* School of Education and Departments of Psychology and Linguistics and Cognitive Science University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716 Office: 302-831-1634; Fax: 302-831-4110 Web page: http://udel.edu/~roberta/ PI on Institute of Education Sciences Postdoctoral Training Grant The late Mary Dunn said, "Life is the time we have to learn." Please follow me on Twitter: KathyandRo1 _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UD Dean Family Endowed Professor in Education.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 855638 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171009/a7d8162a/attachment-0001.pdf From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 9 09:01:20 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 09:01:20 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate In-Reply-To: References: <1507462271698.29592@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F93888181D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX05.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Hi Anne Nelly- There are two unpublished studies of earlier eras of xmca on the website at lchcautobio.ucsd.edu. We have pretty good archives back to the mid 1980's but so far as I know, no one has take them as an object of study. I use them as a source of information about perennial discussion topics. Its open source! :-) mike On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 12:50 AM, PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly < Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch> wrote: > Mike > has someone written the history of LCHC and xmca and of its pioneering > technical/socio-cultural "educational" innovations? > Xmcy was the first electronic list I ever signed up to. > > Anne-Nelly > -----Message d'origine----- > De : on behalf of mike cole > > R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date : dimanche, 8 octobre 2017 22:35 > ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers > from ResearchGate > > Alfredo, Anne Nelly et al --- > > The difficulties to accessing academic research at play in this discussion > motivates my long time treatment of xlchc/xmca as an *educational * > facility. > If you check out the cluster map of xmca that tells you where people are > connecting from, it gives you are pretty good idea of who has interest and > access. ( https://clustrmaps.com/site/17i ) > > A LOT of those visitors do not have access to the articles, never mind the > books, that we seek to discuss here in order to educate ourselves and our > students in fundamental questions about human development in its cultural, > historical, social contexts. If we do not post such materials, we are > sealed off from each other as in the past. > > Lets hope that going forward, MCA and this discussion group can hold itself > together as an educational community sufficiently to ward off the digital > overseers. > > Its not clear how to get to open access, but this has been lchc's way of > trying. > > mike > > On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Glassman, Michael > wrote: > > > The trouble we are facing is that ademia.edu and researchgate are not > > organizations that were formed to serve the public good. They will only > > function as Open Educational Resources as long as it suits their needs. > > They are instead being funded by large amounts of venture capital. > > Eventually these people are going to want their profits. What is scary > >is > > we cannot know what this means. What happened with Facebook and the > > election is the canary in the coal mine (much bigger than a canary > > though). For those who don't know what happened not so good sources used > > targeted advertising of Facebook, and my guess is Google as well, to > > manipulate outcomes. Targeted advertising is when you discuss a trip to > > Bahamas in a gmail discussion and then the next time you log on to gmail > > there is an advertisement for a hotel in the Bahamas. Up to now it has > >been > > freaky but not really dangerous. There is not much discussion of exactly > > what happened other than Russian (and my guess is other groups) used > > targeted advertising. A guess how that happened. People all over the > > country were talking about Hillary Clinton's emails in the last few weeks > > of the campaign. Facebook is able to aggregate the people who were > >actually > > talking about this on their Facebook pages. They are also able to locate > > them according to region. Organizations then use this information to > >target > > people specifically in swing states with advertisements that are > >disguised > > as news items. So on Monday you write a comment, "I really wonder what is > > going on with Hillary's emails" and on Tuesday you get a directed > > advertisement with claims what is happening with Hillary's emails that > > claims legitimacy. This is incredibly powerful. Mark Zuckerberg the > > founder of Facebook as said he won't allow this to happen again (at first > > he denied it) but I'm not so sure how. Targeted advertising is how > > Facebook and Google make a lot of their money. > > > > I worry about the things academia.edu and researchgate.net might do > (full > > disclosure, I am on both because they are becoming the only way to reach > > many fellow researchers). What happens when the funds that have been > > feeding them money demand their profit? Nobody would have predicted what > > happened with targeted advertising. How will research dissemination be > > manipulated? I don't know what the solution to this is but we need to be > > very careful. > > > > I question why universities did not step into the breach, to create Open > > Educational Resources that were not beholden to profit. It's not like > >they > > didn't know this was coming and OER was a possibility. > > > > > > Michael > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ > > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly > > Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2017 9:20 AM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; > > xmca-l@ucsd.edu > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from > > ResearchGate > > > > Thanks for these very interesting links. > > > > The new political line of the Swiss National Research Foundation (SNSF) > >on > > these issues is very interesting: > > "The results of research financed by public funds should be published > > electronically so that they are freely and immediately available without > > charge and can thus be reused by third parties, since they are considered > > as a public good. In support of the principle of Open Access, the SNSF > > expects grantees to make the results of the research projects it has > > supported accessible to the public". > > This will concern almost all scientists in Switzerland. See: > > > > http://www.snf.ch/en/theSNSF/research-policies/open-access/ > > Pages/default.as > > px > > > > Anne-Nelly > > > > > > Prof. em. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont > > Institut de psychologie et ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences > > humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace L. Agassiz 1, CH- 2000 Neuch?tel > > (Switzerland) > perret_clermont> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil < > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < > > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> Date : dimanche, 8 octobre 2017 13:31 ? : " > > xmca-l@ucsd.edu" , "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < > > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of > > millions of > > papers from ResearchGate > > > > That's a complex matter, Peter. Thanks for sharing. I wonder what the > > views of others are. I am still forming mine, but would like to > >contribute > > with another resource to do so, an article from The Guardian on > >profitable > > business scientific publishing > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/ > > profitable-business-scienti > > fic-publishing-bad-for-science > > > > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > on behalf of Peter Smagorinsky > > Sent: 07 October 2017 17:31 > > To: xmca-l@ucsd.edu > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from > > ResearchGate > > > > https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/publishers-seek-removal- > > millions- > > papers-researchgate > > > > > > > > Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate > > > > Academic social network accused of infringing copyright on a massive > >scale > > > > Leading publishers are stepping up their fight against ResearchGate by > > ordering the academic social network to take down papers that they say > > infringe copyright. > > > > The move could see millions of articles removed from the site, as the > > publishers say up to 40 per cent of papers on ResearchGate are > >copyrighted. > > > > James Milne, a spokesman for the group of five academic publishers, which > > includes Elsevier, Wiley and Brill, said that the first batch of > >take-down > > notices would be sent "imminently". > > > > > > > > "We're not doing this in any way against the researchers, we're doing > >this > > against ResearchGate," he told Times Higher Education. The site was > > "clearly hosting and happily uploading material that they know they don't > > have the license or copyrights" to, and was "refusing to work with us to > > solve that problem", he added. > > > > > > > > According to a survey of academics released last year, Berlin-based > > ResearchGate is by some way the world's biggest academic social network, > > used by about 60 per cent of academics, particularly in the physical and > > life sciences, and has raised nearly $90 million (?68 million) in funding > > from investors, according to the website Crunchbase. > > > > > > > > Publishers are seeing "anecdotal" evidence that the availability of > >papers > > on the site is eating into their revenues, said Dr Milne. "We have heard > > during the subscriptions renewal process that librarians are occasionally > > referencing ResearchGate as an alternative to resubscribing to journals," > > he said. > > > > > > > > He attacked ResearchGate as being "backed by hundreds of millions of > > dollars [from venture capitalists,] who are seeking to make a profit from > > what [ResearchGate] do, which is upload copyright infringed material". > > > > > > > > "They put nothing back into the process for generating and validating and > > curating all that material," he said. > > > > > > > > The publisher Elsevier drew a backlash from many academics in 2013 when > >it > > told users of Academia.edu, a rival to ResearchGate, to take down papers > >to > > which it had rights. Dr Milne stressed that this time, the publishers > >would > > not directly send take-down notices to academics. "We will work with > > ResearchGate on this, not researchers," he said, although the > >organisation > > would be communicating "en masse" with academics about how they can share > > their work properly. > > > > > > > > But for the publishers, sending out mass take-down notices is not a > > permanent solution. "That in itself doesn't solve the problem, because > > every day ResearchGate is uploading more and more material," said Dr > >Milne, > > trapping publishers in a "perpetual loop" of having to identify > >infringing > > papers. He argued that this would be confusing for researchers, as "one > >day > > there's content, and the next day there isn't", he said. > > > > > > > > Elsevier and the American Chemical Society are therefore also taking > > ResearchGate to court where they hope to obtain a ruling that would stop > > ResearchGate "scraping content off the web, uploading it...and asking > > researchers to claim it" so that infringing material "is not in the > >public > > domain", he explained. The court claim would be lodged in Europe, he > >said. > > > > > > > > A ResearchGate spokeswoman declined to comment. The company's founder and > > chief executive, Ijad Madisch, has previously said that he "wouldn't > >mind" > > if copyrighted material was removed from the site, as researchers could > > continue to share papers privately. > > > > > > > > david.matthews@timeshighereducation.com > timeshighered > > ucation.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > From alexander.surmava@yahoo.com Mon Oct 9 09:14:21 2017 From: alexander.surmava@yahoo.com (Alexander Surmava) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 16:14:21 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Different cultural approaches to Spinozism References: <169793050.7463993.1507565661009.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <169793050.7463993.1507565661009@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Ivan,The fact that we understand Spinoza differently is quite obvious. Hence the different assessment of Vygotsky's theoretical legacy. I think that we established this circumstance with absolute certaintyBut what should we do now, having fixed this difference in our approaches?Just continue to go the same way that we went before? Agree that such an outcome of our discussion would be unproductive, if not utterly sterile.Or still try to compare our approaches more closely in the hope of deepening our understanding of the subject under discussion. Given that each of us has a different tradition in reading the same Spinoza, a different theoretical culture, such a comparison of our positions would allow us to compare not our personal, our individual theoretical tastes, but something more significant, different cultural and historical approaches to theorizing about a human.Based on my own experience in studying philosophy, and my experience in teaching philosophy and theoretical psychology, I can argue that the understanding of classical philosophical texts essentially depends on the socio-cultural context in which the one who studies them is. To study old philosophers outside of all current socio-cultural contexts is a fundamentally unreal thing. In these contexts we live, they are part of our thinking, our human affects. Therefore, the difference here can only be whether we consciously proceed from our social and cultural position, or it happens spontaneously and unconsciously.Agree that for a serious thinker, a serious researcher, it is preferable to be aware of his own cultural and social grounds.Therefore, I believe that it is advisable to approach the study of the texts of the same Spinoza not with a "clean head", but with a head armed at least to the minimum degree with modern, maximally developed ideas. In the case of Spinoza under such modern and more developed ideas, I mean the philosophy of Marx. Moreover, even more specifically, the most modern Ilyenkov?s interpretation of Marx's philosophy. In this approach, I proceed from the old Marxist idea (which Vygotsky liked to quote) that the anatomy of man is the key to the anatomy of ape. In our case, I want to say that the philosophy of Ilyenkov is precisely such a key to the philosophy of Spinoza.In this regard, I have a question for you - which school of Spinoza's reading you refer to yourself? After all, before judging whether Vygotsky's ideas correspond to something in Spinoza, it is advisable to first deal with Spinoza's own ideas. In brackets, I note that it is hardly possible to speak seriously about a certain Vygotsky tradition in the interpretation of Spinoza. Yet Vygotsky did not discuss the philosophy of Spinoza as such, but in his psychological reflections he tried to rely on Spinoza's separate statements. At the same time, he admitted sometimes gross, student's mistakes in the interpretation of Spinozism. So, he stated that the psychophysical problem is solved by wordless animals in a different way than by a human with his language signs. The last statement is especially anecdotal, since the psychophysical problem in Spinoza's logic does not exist at all, and for Descartes it makes sense only and exclusively for human. According to Descartes, animals perfectly live without any soul, and therefore they do not need any special solution of not existing for them psychophysical problem.So, I repeat the question once more - with what school of Spinoza's interpretation do you identify yourself? What philosophers who interpreted Spinoza, did you read BEFORE you read the texts of Spinoza himself? Or, perhaps, with what living philosophers you communicated before hitting the texts of the old Dutchman. Agree that the result of reading the same "Ethics" by a theoretician who first acquainted himself exclusively with the interpretation of Spinoza as, presumably, a predominantly religious Jewish thinker, and a theorist who proceeded from the fact that Spinoza resolutely retired from religious dogma, both Jewish and Christian. even in his youth, and that as a philosopher he was primarily an atheist, a materialist and rationalist, would be essentially different. Two of these theorists will see in his texts primarily what their teachers taught them. And who of them will understand Spinoza better, will depend more authentically on their original socio-cultural position, from the school in which they were brought up as theorists.As for me, as a young student I was lucky enough to meet with Ilyenkov. Very early ? in 1976 at the seminar, which was led by Evald Vasilievitch, I have read two of his classic works on the analysis of Spinozism: ?"the Question of identity of thinking and being in pre-Marxist philosophy" and the first two essays from his "Dialectical logic". Both of these texts are quite close to each other in content, and the second one exists in English. However, you have the advantage over most colleagues on XMCA that you can read original Russian text.I must say that especially now, looking with big, life long distance, I understand that this two texts embody Ilyenkov?s Central philosophical idea. Moreover, I believe that this Spinoza-Ilyenkov?s definition of thinking as the mode of action of a thinking body is the main Ilyenkov?s contribution to the world philosophy.?Of course, errare humanum est. Both I may be wrong in this assessment, and Ilyenkov could be wrong, interpreting Spinoza in this way. By the way, the Russian philosopher A. Maidansky insists that this idea not only does not reveal the main essence of Spinozism, but it roughly distorts it. That the "thinking body" is an oxymoron, and that only a (disembodied) soul can think, and that attributing Spinoza the thought that thinking can be the action of the body is a gross mechanism, vulgar materialism..Well, if Maidanskiy is right, then we will have to admit that Ilyenkov did not establish himself as a philosopher. For behind the minus of this central idea, Ilyenkov's theoretical legacy can hardly claim any special originality and relevance.Of course, as theorists and not believers in the philosophical guru we can not abstractly deny such an option.And yet, thinking about the problem not abstractly, but concretely, we will insist with all categorical that Ilyenkov's reading of Spinoza is true, whereas the interpretation of Maidanski is theoretically vulgar return to the latitudes of Cartesian dualism. The path from Ilyenkov's interpretation of Spinoza, from his "thinking body", leads straight to Marx with his ?Das Kapital? and then to the activity psychology of Leontiev and Bernshtein. Whereas, the path from Maidanski?s ?Cartesian interpretation of Spinoza doesn?t leads us forwards, but brings us back to Descartes.?Once again, Ivan, thank you for an interesting conversation. And please do not rush to answer me. I know that you are now busy. You answer me then, when you can.Most importantly, I would like to see our ?intercultural communication? is not interrupted in mid-sentence. ?For the Internet in General and in particular XMCA gives us of course the wonderful technical tool for such communication. But this tool does not make any sense, if there is no desire to really understand each other. Moreover, we are not talking here about the quirks of our private philosophical taste, but the need to bridge the gap between traditional for English-speaking countries empiricism and eclecticism, and German-Russian rationalism. As a Marxist, I am not inclined to exaggerate the difficulties caused by these different traditions. I am confident that our common social and political beliefs give us far more opportunities for mutual understanding than bad textbooks on the philosophy of the school and University libraries..All the best,Sasha - - Dear Sasha - I think we are reading Spinoza differently. - IMHO, the interaction of relatively active and relatively passive bodies is a central problem in Spinoza's work. ?It is implicit perhaps in the Ethics, but more to the fore in the TIE. Vygotsky's treatment of the child/learner and the social environment is congruent with this.? - By "social environment" I mean a body like "?????????? ????????", as in the following (from Thinking and Speech): - ?? [???????] ?????? ??????? ?? ????? ????????, ???????? ??? ????????????? ? ?????? ??? ? ??????? ???? ?????????? ???????? ????. ????? ??????, ??????? ?? ??????? ????? ????, ?? ????????? ??????? ???? ?????????? ??? ????????. - He [the child] only follows the speech of adults, adopting the specific meanings of words, meanings already established and given to him in their finished form. ?Simply stated, the child does not create his speech, but he adopts the ready-made speech of the adults around him. - (unsurprisingly, ????????? is translated as "learn" in the English Collected Works translation. ?IMHO adopt or imitate is more accurate.) - Granted, "social environment" is more abstract than "surrounding adults? are. - As for "the intellect" in E1d4. ?IIRC Spinoza does not define this term anywhere in the Ethics. - When I am back, I'll be sketching out my understanding of Spinoza as a foundation for other work. - Best wishes - ? Ivan From Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch Mon Oct 9 09:22:11 2017 From: Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch (PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 16:22:11 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate In-Reply-To: References: <1507462271698.29592@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F93888181D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX05.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Thanks Mike! Perhaps some of those who read will be inspired or, more likely, as history requires time/generation gap, some younger student will. It would be a very nice and interesting contribution to the history of psychology and social sciences but also to the understanding of East/West (cultural, but not only) relations. ;-) Anne-Nelly -----Message d'origine----- De : on behalf of mike cole R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Date : lundi, 9 octobre 2017 18:01 ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate Hi Anne Nelly- There are two unpublished studies of earlier eras of xmca on the website at lchcautobio.ucsd.edu. We have pretty good archives back to the mid 1980's but so far as I know, no one has take them as an object of study. I use them as a source of information about perennial discussion topics. Its open source! :-) mike On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 12:50 AM, PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly < Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch> wrote: > Mike > has someone written the history of LCHC and xmca and of its pioneering > technical/socio-cultural "educational" innovations? > Xmcy was the first electronic list I ever signed up to. > > Anne-Nelly > -----Message d'origine----- > De : on behalf of mike cole > > R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date : dimanche, 8 octobre 2017 22:35 > ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers > from ResearchGate > > Alfredo, Anne Nelly et al --- > > The difficulties to accessing academic research at play in this >discussion > motivates my long time treatment of xlchc/xmca as an *educational * > facility. > If you check out the cluster map of xmca that tells you where people are > connecting from, it gives you are pretty good idea of who has interest >and > access. ( https://clustrmaps.com/site/17i ) > > A LOT of those visitors do not have access to the articles, never mind >the > books, that we seek to discuss here in order to educate ourselves and our > students in fundamental questions about human development in its >cultural, > historical, social contexts. If we do not post such materials, we are > sealed off from each other as in the past. > > Lets hope that going forward, MCA and this discussion group can hold >itself > together as an educational community sufficiently to ward off the digital > overseers. > > Its not clear how to get to open access, but this has been lchc's way of > trying. > > mike > > On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Glassman, Michael > wrote: > > > The trouble we are facing is that ademia.edu and researchgate are not > > organizations that were formed to serve the public good. They will only > > function as Open Educational Resources as long as it suits their needs. > > They are instead being funded by large amounts of venture capital. > > Eventually these people are going to want their profits. What is scary > >is > > we cannot know what this means. What happened with Facebook and the > > election is the canary in the coal mine (much bigger than a canary > > though). For those who don't know what happened not so good sources >used > > targeted advertising of Facebook, and my guess is Google as well, to > > manipulate outcomes. Targeted advertising is when you discuss a trip >to > > Bahamas in a gmail discussion and then the next time you log on to >gmail > > there is an advertisement for a hotel in the Bahamas. Up to now it has > >been > > freaky but not really dangerous. There is not much discussion of >exactly > > what happened other than Russian (and my guess is other groups) used > > targeted advertising. A guess how that happened. People all over the > > country were talking about Hillary Clinton's emails in the last few >weeks > > of the campaign. Facebook is able to aggregate the people who were > >actually > > talking about this on their Facebook pages. They are also able to >locate > > them according to region. Organizations then use this information to > >target > > people specifically in swing states with advertisements that are > >disguised > > as news items. So on Monday you write a comment, "I really wonder what >is > > going on with Hillary's emails" and on Tuesday you get a directed > > advertisement with claims what is happening with Hillary's emails that > > claims legitimacy. This is incredibly powerful. Mark Zuckerberg the > > founder of Facebook as said he won't allow this to happen again (at >first > > he denied it) but I'm not so sure how. Targeted advertising is how > > Facebook and Google make a lot of their money. > > > > I worry about the things academia.edu and researchgate.net might do > (full > > disclosure, I am on both because they are becoming the only way to >reach > > many fellow researchers). What happens when the funds that have been > > feeding them money demand their profit? Nobody would have predicted >what > > happened with targeted advertising. How will research dissemination be > > manipulated? I don't know what the solution to this is but we need to >be > > very careful. > > > > I question why universities did not step into the breach, to create >Open > > Educational Resources that were not beholden to profit. It's not like > >they > > didn't know this was coming and OER was a possibility. > > > > > > Michael > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ > > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly > > Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2017 9:20 AM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; > > xmca-l@ucsd.edu > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers >from > > ResearchGate > > > > Thanks for these very interesting links. > > > > The new political line of the Swiss National Research Foundation (SNSF) > >on > > these issues is very interesting: > > "The results of research financed by public funds should be published > > electronically so that they are freely and immediately available >without > > charge and can thus be reused by third parties, since they are >considered > > as a public good. In support of the principle of Open Access, the SNSF > > expects grantees to make the results of the research projects it has > > supported accessible to the public". > > This will concern almost all scientists in Switzerland. See: > > > > http://www.snf.ch/en/theSNSF/research-policies/open-access/ > > Pages/default.as > > px > > > > Anne-Nelly > > > > > > Prof. em. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont > > Institut de psychologie et ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences > > humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace L. Agassiz 1, CH- 2000 >Neuch?tel > > (Switzerland) > perret_clermont> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil >< > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < > > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> Date : dimanche, 8 octobre 2017 13:31 ? : " > > xmca-l@ucsd.edu" , "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >< > > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal >of > > millions of > > papers from ResearchGate > > > > That's a complex matter, Peter. Thanks for sharing. I wonder what the > > views of others are. I am still forming mine, but would like to > >contribute > > with another resource to do so, an article from The Guardian on > >profitable > > business scientific publishing > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/ > > profitable-business-scienti > > fic-publishing-bad-for-science > > > > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > on behalf of Peter Smagorinsky > > Sent: 07 October 2017 17:31 > > To: xmca-l@ucsd.edu > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from > > ResearchGate > > > > https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/publishers-seek-removal- > > millions- > > papers-researchgate > > > > > > > > Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate > > > > Academic social network accused of infringing copyright on a massive > >scale > > > > Leading publishers are stepping up their fight against ResearchGate by > > ordering the academic social network to take down papers that they say > > infringe copyright. > > > > The move could see millions of articles removed from the site, as the > > publishers say up to 40 per cent of papers on ResearchGate are > >copyrighted. > > > > James Milne, a spokesman for the group of five academic publishers, >which > > includes Elsevier, Wiley and Brill, said that the first batch of > >take-down > > notices would be sent "imminently". > > > > > > > > "We're not doing this in any way against the researchers, we're doing > >this > > against ResearchGate," he told Times Higher Education. The site was > > "clearly hosting and happily uploading material that they know they >don't > > have the license or copyrights" to, and was "refusing to work with us >to > > solve that problem", he added. > > > > > > > > According to a survey of academics released last year, Berlin-based > > ResearchGate is by some way the world's biggest academic social >network, > > used by about 60 per cent of academics, particularly in the physical >and > > life sciences, and has raised nearly $90 million (?68 million) in >funding > > from investors, according to the website Crunchbase. > > > > > > > > Publishers are seeing "anecdotal" evidence that the availability of > >papers > > on the site is eating into their revenues, said Dr Milne. "We have >heard > > during the subscriptions renewal process that librarians are >occasionally > > referencing ResearchGate as an alternative to resubscribing to >journals," > > he said. > > > > > > > > He attacked ResearchGate as being "backed by hundreds of millions of > > dollars [from venture capitalists,] who are seeking to make a profit >from > > what [ResearchGate] do, which is upload copyright infringed material". > > > > > > > > "They put nothing back into the process for generating and validating >and > > curating all that material," he said. > > > > > > > > The publisher Elsevier drew a backlash from many academics in 2013 when > >it > > told users of Academia.edu, a rival to ResearchGate, to take down >papers > >to > > which it had rights. Dr Milne stressed that this time, the publishers > >would > > not directly send take-down notices to academics. "We will work with > > ResearchGate on this, not researchers," he said, although the > >organisation > > would be communicating "en masse" with academics about how they can >share > > their work properly. > > > > > > > > But for the publishers, sending out mass take-down notices is not a > > permanent solution. "That in itself doesn't solve the problem, because > > every day ResearchGate is uploading more and more material," said Dr > >Milne, > > trapping publishers in a "perpetual loop" of having to identify > >infringing > > papers. He argued that this would be confusing for researchers, as "one > >day > > there's content, and the next day there isn't", he said. > > > > > > > > Elsevier and the American Chemical Society are therefore also taking > > ResearchGate to court where they hope to obtain a ruling that would >stop > > ResearchGate "scraping content off the web, uploading it...and asking > > researchers to claim it" so that infringing material "is not in the > >public > > domain", he explained. The court claim would be lodged in Europe, he > >said. > > > > > > > > A ResearchGate spokeswoman declined to comment. The company's founder >and > > chief executive, Ijad Madisch, has previously said that he "wouldn't > >mind" > > if copyrighted material was removed from the site, as researchers could > > continue to share papers privately. > > > > > > > > david.matthews@timeshighereducation.com > timeshighered > > ucation.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > From feine@duq.edu Mon Oct 9 10:31:58 2017 From: feine@duq.edu (Elizabeth Fein) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 13:31:58 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Survey on Psychology Graduate Training in Qualitative Methods Message-ID: Dear colleagues, The Society for Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology is trying to make it easier for prospective graduate students to find psychology departments that offer training in qualitative research methods. I thought this was something folks on this list might have good information about. We've created a survey, where our members can share their knowledge about psychology graduate programs that offer various kinds of support for qualitative research - from offering individual courses to having faculty available to supervise and mentor clinical work to offering certification in qualitative methods. The survey is here: https://umassboston.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eYiiwHl8bsySwTj Please take a moment to follow this link and share any information you know about your program, your colleagues' programs, and other programs you are aware of. *Please circulate this survey widely. * The more responses we get, the better we will be able to help guide the next generation of qualitative researchers in psychology to sites where they will be supported in their goals. Best, Elizabeth -- Elizabeth Fein, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Psychology Duquesne University From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Mon Oct 9 10:59:01 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 17:59:01 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Survey on Psychology Graduate Training in Qualitative Methods In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1507571941510.14310@iped.uio.no> Nice initiative, thanks for sharing, Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Elizabeth Fein Sent: 09 October 2017 19:31 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Survey on Psychology Graduate Training in Qualitative Methods Dear colleagues, The Society for Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology is trying to make it easier for prospective graduate students to find psychology departments that offer training in qualitative research methods. I thought this was something folks on this list might have good information about. We've created a survey, where our members can share their knowledge about psychology graduate programs that offer various kinds of support for qualitative research - from offering individual courses to having faculty available to supervise and mentor clinical work to offering certification in qualitative methods. The survey is here: https://umassboston.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eYiiwHl8bsySwTj Please take a moment to follow this link and share any information you know about your program, your colleagues' programs, and other programs you are aware of. *Please circulate this survey widely. * The more responses we get, the better we will be able to help guide the next generation of qualitative researchers in psychology to sites where they will be supported in their goals. Best, Elizabeth -- Elizabeth Fein, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Psychology Duquesne University From annalisa@unm.edu Mon Oct 9 13:45:43 2017 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 20:45:43 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate In-Reply-To: References: <1507462271698.29592@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F93888181D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX05.osuad.osu.edu> , Message-ID: Hi Mike, I've been watching this thread, but this is the first opportunity I've had to post so sorry I'm late to the conversation. It appears that the way XMCA is able to function under the radar (and rightfully so) is the assertion that this is an educational forum (and a long-standing one at that!) and we as scholars are required access to copyrighted material so that we can do our work, so this falls under fair use. Is that basically the gist of the matter for this copyright challenge by academic publishers? I ask because I am constructing a publishing model that might have similar challenges, and forearmed is forewarned. We had discussed it once. What I wonder is if the VC's who have created these social networks have gotten themselves caught in a raccoon trap? [http://image.sportsmansguide.com/adimgs/l/1/186667_ts.jpg ] These traps function by enticing the racoon with a shiny obect, but it can't get it out of the hole without letting go of the shiny object, and so it stays around trying to figure out how to get the shiny object out. Reaching in and letting go and reaching in and letting go. It's futile and impossible, if you are a raccoon that is. Kind regards, Annalisa [http://image.sportsmansguide.com/adimgs/l/1/186667_ts.jpg] ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of mike cole Sent: Monday, October 9, 2017 10:01 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate Hi Anne Nelly- There are two unpublished studies of earlier eras of xmca on the website at lchcautobio.ucsd.edu. We have pretty good archives back to the mid 1980's but so far as I know, no one has take them as an object of study. I use them as a source of information about perennial discussion topics. Its open source! :-) mike On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 12:50 AM, PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly < Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch> wrote: > Mike > has someone written the history of LCHC and xmca and of its pioneering > technical/socio-cultural "educational" innovations? > Xmcy was the first electronic list I ever signed up to. > > Anne-Nelly > -----Message d'origine----- > De : on behalf of mike cole > > R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date : dimanche, 8 octobre 2017 22:35 > ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers > from ResearchGate > > Alfredo, Anne Nelly et al --- > > The difficulties to accessing academic research at play in this discussion > motivates my long time treatment of xlchc/xmca as an *educational * > facility. > If you check out the cluster map of xmca that tells you where people are > connecting from, it gives you are pretty good idea of who has interest and > access. ( https://clustrmaps.com/site/17i ) > > A LOT of those visitors do not have access to the articles, never mind the > books, that we seek to discuss here in order to educate ourselves and our > students in fundamental questions about human development in its cultural, > historical, social contexts. If we do not post such materials, we are > sealed off from each other as in the past. > > Lets hope that going forward, MCA and this discussion group can hold itself > together as an educational community sufficiently to ward off the digital > overseers. > > Its not clear how to get to open access, but this has been lchc's way of > trying. > > mike > > On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Glassman, Michael > wrote: > > > The trouble we are facing is that ademia.edu and researchgate are not > > organizations that were formed to serve the public good. They will only > > function as Open Educational Resources as long as it suits their needs. > > They are instead being funded by large amounts of venture capital. > > Eventually these people are going to want their profits. What is scary > >is > > we cannot know what this means. What happened with Facebook and the > > election is the canary in the coal mine (much bigger than a canary > > though). For those who don't know what happened not so good sources used > > targeted advertising of Facebook, and my guess is Google as well, to > > manipulate outcomes. Targeted advertising is when you discuss a trip to > > Bahamas in a gmail discussion and then the next time you log on to gmail > > there is an advertisement for a hotel in the Bahamas. Up to now it has > >been > > freaky but not really dangerous. There is not much discussion of exactly > > what happened other than Russian (and my guess is other groups) used > > targeted advertising. A guess how that happened. People all over the > > country were talking about Hillary Clinton's emails in the last few weeks > > of the campaign. Facebook is able to aggregate the people who were > >actually > > talking about this on their Facebook pages. They are also able to locate > > them according to region. Organizations then use this information to > >target > > people specifically in swing states with advertisements that are > >disguised > > as news items. So on Monday you write a comment, "I really wonder what is > > going on with Hillary's emails" and on Tuesday you get a directed > > advertisement with claims what is happening with Hillary's emails that > > claims legitimacy. This is incredibly powerful. Mark Zuckerberg the > > founder of Facebook as said he won't allow this to happen again (at first > > he denied it) but I'm not so sure how. Targeted advertising is how > > Facebook and Google make a lot of their money. > > > > I worry about the things academia.edu and researchgate.net might do > (full > > disclosure, I am on both because they are becoming the only way to reach > > many fellow researchers). What happens when the funds that have been > > feeding them money demand their profit? Nobody would have predicted what > > happened with targeted advertising. How will research dissemination be > > manipulated? I don't know what the solution to this is but we need to be > > very careful. > > > > I question why universities did not step into the breach, to create Open > > Educational Resources that were not beholden to profit. It's not like > >they > > didn't know this was coming and OER was a possibility. > > > > > > Michael > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ > > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly > > Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2017 9:20 AM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; > > xmca-l@ucsd.edu > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from > > ResearchGate > > > > Thanks for these very interesting links. > > > > The new political line of the Swiss National Research Foundation (SNSF) > >on > > these issues is very interesting: > > "The results of research financed by public funds should be published > > electronically so that they are freely and immediately available without > > charge and can thus be reused by third parties, since they are considered > > as a public good. In support of the principle of Open Access, the SNSF > > expects grantees to make the results of the research projects it has > > supported accessible to the public". > > This will concern almost all scientists in Switzerland. See: > > > > http://www.snf.ch/en/theSNSF/research-policies/open-access/ > > Pages/default.as > > px > > > > Anne-Nelly > > > > > > Prof. em. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont > > Institut de psychologie et ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences > > humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace L. Agassiz 1, CH- 2000 Neuch?tel > > (Switzerland) > perret_clermont> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil < > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < > > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> Date : dimanche, 8 octobre 2017 13:31 ? : " > > xmca-l@ucsd.edu" , "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < > > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of > > millions of > > papers from ResearchGate > > > > That's a complex matter, Peter. Thanks for sharing. I wonder what the > > views of others are. I am still forming mine, but would like to > >contribute > > with another resource to do so, an article from The Guardian on > >profitable > > business scientific publishing > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/ > > profitable-business-scienti > > fic-publishing-bad-for-science > > > > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > on behalf of Peter Smagorinsky > > Sent: 07 October 2017 17:31 > > To: xmca-l@ucsd.edu > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from > > ResearchGate > > > > https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/publishers-seek-removal- > > millions- > > papers-researchgate > > > > > > > > Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate > > > > Academic social network accused of infringing copyright on a massive > >scale > > > > Leading publishers are stepping up their fight against ResearchGate by > > ordering the academic social network to take down papers that they say > > infringe copyright. > > > > The move could see millions of articles removed from the site, as the > > publishers say up to 40 per cent of papers on ResearchGate are > >copyrighted. > > > > James Milne, a spokesman for the group of five academic publishers, which > > includes Elsevier, Wiley and Brill, said that the first batch of > >take-down > > notices would be sent "imminently". > > > > > > > > "We're not doing this in any way against the researchers, we're doing > >this > > against ResearchGate," he told Times Higher Education. The site was > > "clearly hosting and happily uploading material that they know they don't > > have the license or copyrights" to, and was "refusing to work with us to > > solve that problem", he added. > > > > > > > > According to a survey of academics released last year, Berlin-based > > ResearchGate is by some way the world's biggest academic social network, > > used by about 60 per cent of academics, particularly in the physical and > > life sciences, and has raised nearly $90 million (?68 million) in funding > > from investors, according to the website Crunchbase. > > > > > > > > Publishers are seeing "anecdotal" evidence that the availability of > >papers > > on the site is eating into their revenues, said Dr Milne. "We have heard > > during the subscriptions renewal process that librarians are occasionally > > referencing ResearchGate as an alternative to resubscribing to journals," > > he said. > > > > > > > > He attacked ResearchGate as being "backed by hundreds of millions of > > dollars [from venture capitalists,] who are seeking to make a profit from > > what [ResearchGate] do, which is upload copyright infringed material". > > > > > > > > "They put nothing back into the process for generating and validating and > > curating all that material," he said. > > > > > > > > The publisher Elsevier drew a backlash from many academics in 2013 when > >it > > told users of Academia.edu, a rival to ResearchGate, to take down papers > >to > > which it had rights. Dr Milne stressed that this time, the publishers > >would > > not directly send take-down notices to academics. "We will work with > > ResearchGate on this, not researchers," he said, although the > >organisation > > would be communicating "en masse" with academics about how they can share > > their work properly. > > > > > > > > But for the publishers, sending out mass take-down notices is not a > > permanent solution. "That in itself doesn't solve the problem, because > > every day ResearchGate is uploading more and more material," said Dr > >Milne, > > trapping publishers in a "perpetual loop" of having to identify > >infringing > > papers. He argued that this would be confusing for researchers, as "one > >day > > there's content, and the next day there isn't", he said. > > > > > > > > Elsevier and the American Chemical Society are therefore also taking > > ResearchGate to court where they hope to obtain a ruling that would stop > > ResearchGate "scraping content off the web, uploading it...and asking > > researchers to claim it" so that infringing material "is not in the > >public > > domain", he explained. The court claim would be lodged in Europe, he > >said. > > > > > > > > A ResearchGate spokeswoman declined to comment. The company's founder and > > chief executive, Ijad Madisch, has previously said that he "wouldn't > >mind" > > if copyrighted material was removed from the site, as researchers could > > continue to share papers privately. > > > > > > > > david.matthews@timeshighereducation.com > timeshighered > > ucation.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > From annalisa@unm.edu Mon Oct 9 14:05:35 2017 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 21:05:35 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate In-Reply-To: References: <1507462271698.29592@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F93888181D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX05.osuad.osu.edu> , Message-ID: Also... (to Mike, et al): Just after pressing send, and thinking more about this (now, out loud): I wonder if there is a strange effect whereby academic publishers, in seeking to regain and maintain their income turf, they might be preventing the VC's from actually benefiting from whatever "fruit" there is to monetize academic content through a social network. Not that that is their goal, of course. It almost is like two cavemen fighting over a cavewoman (I hope I don't offend anyone on the list using those trite gender cis constructs). But of course Open Access, seems to be the true holy grail, but no one is having that conversation who wants to make money off the content. I invite others to comment. Kind regards, Annalisa From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Mon Oct 9 14:11:14 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 21:11:14 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate In-Reply-To: References: <1507462271698.29592@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F93888181D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX05.osuad.osu.edu> , , Message-ID: <1507583473996.60088@iped.uio.no> Very strong metaphor the one with the raccoon trap, Annalisa. Mike will surely address your questions better, but, while I see how xmca is an educational forum and I would and do encourage all authors to share their work here, it is not a 'publishing model', which seems to be what you are trying to work out. In support of the legitimate sharing of work that xmca supports as an educational forum, even T&F is happy to release open access one article per issue during a couple of months only for us to discuss it here, in addition to us sharing the PDF here. So now, Carrie Lobman's article is open access for everyone thanks to this educative/scholarly initiative we try to sustain here. Not to mention, as Mike says, the open access to the perennial discussions topics. I think Michael G's comments comparing Research Gate and Academia.edu with Facebook's role in the elections are very enlightening, for it really is a concern not only of some making profit, but also on how these digital networks may transform the way we produce and consume research by reasons other than good/progress. Long life to educational forums like this one! Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: 09 October 2017 22:45 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate Hi Mike, I've been watching this thread, but this is the first opportunity I've had to post so sorry I'm late to the conversation. It appears that the way XMCA is able to function under the radar (and rightfully so) is the assertion that this is an educational forum (and a long-standing one at that!) and we as scholars are required access to copyrighted material so that we can do our work, so this falls under fair use. Is that basically the gist of the matter for this copyright challenge by academic publishers? I ask because I am constructing a publishing model that might have similar challenges, and forearmed is forewarned. We had discussed it once. What I wonder is if the VC's who have created these social networks have gotten themselves caught in a raccoon trap? [http://image.sportsmansguide.com/adimgs/l/1/186667_ts.jpg ] These traps function by enticing the racoon with a shiny obect, but it can't get it out of the hole without letting go of the shiny object, and so it stays around trying to figure out how to get the shiny object out. Reaching in and letting go and reaching in and letting go. It's futile and impossible, if you are a raccoon that is. Kind regards, Annalisa [http://image.sportsmansguide.com/adimgs/l/1/186667_ts.jpg] ________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of mike cole Sent: Monday, October 9, 2017 10:01 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate Hi Anne Nelly- There are two unpublished studies of earlier eras of xmca on the website at lchcautobio.ucsd.edu. We have pretty good archives back to the mid 1980's but so far as I know, no one has take them as an object of study. I use them as a source of information about perennial discussion topics. Its open source! :-) mike On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 12:50 AM, PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly < Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch> wrote: > Mike > has someone written the history of LCHC and xmca and of its pioneering > technical/socio-cultural "educational" innovations? > Xmcy was the first electronic list I ever signed up to. > > Anne-Nelly > -----Message d'origine----- > De : on behalf of mike cole > > R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Date : dimanche, 8 octobre 2017 22:35 > ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers > from ResearchGate > > Alfredo, Anne Nelly et al --- > > The difficulties to accessing academic research at play in this discussion > motivates my long time treatment of xlchc/xmca as an *educational * > facility. > If you check out the cluster map of xmca that tells you where people are > connecting from, it gives you are pretty good idea of who has interest and > access. ( https://clustrmaps.com/site/17i ) > > A LOT of those visitors do not have access to the articles, never mind the > books, that we seek to discuss here in order to educate ourselves and our > students in fundamental questions about human development in its cultural, > historical, social contexts. If we do not post such materials, we are > sealed off from each other as in the past. > > Lets hope that going forward, MCA and this discussion group can hold itself > together as an educational community sufficiently to ward off the digital > overseers. > > Its not clear how to get to open access, but this has been lchc's way of > trying. > > mike > > On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Glassman, Michael > wrote: > > > The trouble we are facing is that ademia.edu and researchgate are not > > organizations that were formed to serve the public good. They will only > > function as Open Educational Resources as long as it suits their needs. > > They are instead being funded by large amounts of venture capital. > > Eventually these people are going to want their profits. What is scary > >is > > we cannot know what this means. What happened with Facebook and the > > election is the canary in the coal mine (much bigger than a canary > > though). For those who don't know what happened not so good sources used > > targeted advertising of Facebook, and my guess is Google as well, to > > manipulate outcomes. Targeted advertising is when you discuss a trip to > > Bahamas in a gmail discussion and then the next time you log on to gmail > > there is an advertisement for a hotel in the Bahamas. Up to now it has > >been > > freaky but not really dangerous. There is not much discussion of exactly > > what happened other than Russian (and my guess is other groups) used > > targeted advertising. A guess how that happened. People all over the > > country were talking about Hillary Clinton's emails in the last few weeks > > of the campaign. Facebook is able to aggregate the people who were > >actually > > talking about this on their Facebook pages. They are also able to locate > > them according to region. Organizations then use this information to > >target > > people specifically in swing states with advertisements that are > >disguised > > as news items. So on Monday you write a comment, "I really wonder what is > > going on with Hillary's emails" and on Tuesday you get a directed > > advertisement with claims what is happening with Hillary's emails that > > claims legitimacy. This is incredibly powerful. Mark Zuckerberg the > > founder of Facebook as said he won't allow this to happen again (at first > > he denied it) but I'm not so sure how. Targeted advertising is how > > Facebook and Google make a lot of their money. > > > > I worry about the things academia.edu and researchgate.net might do > (full > > disclosure, I am on both because they are becoming the only way to reach > > many fellow researchers). What happens when the funds that have been > > feeding them money demand their profit? Nobody would have predicted what > > happened with targeted advertising. How will research dissemination be > > manipulated? I don't know what the solution to this is but we need to be > > very careful. > > > > I question why universities did not step into the breach, to create Open > > Educational Resources that were not beholden to profit. It's not like > >they > > didn't know this was coming and OER was a possibility. > > > > > > Michael > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ > > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly > > Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2017 9:20 AM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; > > xmca-l@ucsd.edu > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from > > ResearchGate > > > > Thanks for these very interesting links. > > > > The new political line of the Swiss National Research Foundation (SNSF) > >on > > these issues is very interesting: > > "The results of research financed by public funds should be published > > electronically so that they are freely and immediately available without > > charge and can thus be reused by third parties, since they are considered > > as a public good. In support of the principle of Open Access, the SNSF > > expects grantees to make the results of the research projects it has > > supported accessible to the public". > > This will concern almost all scientists in Switzerland. See: > > > > http://www.snf.ch/en/theSNSF/research-policies/open-access/ > > Pages/default.as > > px > > > > Anne-Nelly > > > > > > Prof. em. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont > > Institut de psychologie et ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences > > humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace L. Agassiz 1, CH- 2000 Neuch?tel > > (Switzerland) > perret_clermont> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil < > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < > > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> Date : dimanche, 8 octobre 2017 13:31 ? : " > > xmca-l@ucsd.edu" , "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < > > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of > > millions of > > papers from ResearchGate > > > > That's a complex matter, Peter. Thanks for sharing. I wonder what the > > views of others are. I am still forming mine, but would like to > >contribute > > with another resource to do so, an article from The Guardian on > >profitable > > business scientific publishing > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/ > > profitable-business-scienti > > fic-publishing-bad-for-science > > > > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > on behalf of Peter Smagorinsky > > Sent: 07 October 2017 17:31 > > To: xmca-l@ucsd.edu > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from > > ResearchGate > > > > https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/publishers-seek-removal- > > millions- > > papers-researchgate > > > > > > > > Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate > > > > Academic social network accused of infringing copyright on a massive > >scale > > > > Leading publishers are stepping up their fight against ResearchGate by > > ordering the academic social network to take down papers that they say > > infringe copyright. > > > > The move could see millions of articles removed from the site, as the > > publishers say up to 40 per cent of papers on ResearchGate are > >copyrighted. > > > > James Milne, a spokesman for the group of five academic publishers, which > > includes Elsevier, Wiley and Brill, said that the first batch of > >take-down > > notices would be sent "imminently". > > > > > > > > "We're not doing this in any way against the researchers, we're doing > >this > > against ResearchGate," he told Times Higher Education. The site was > > "clearly hosting and happily uploading material that they know they don't > > have the license or copyrights" to, and was "refusing to work with us to > > solve that problem", he added. > > > > > > > > According to a survey of academics released last year, Berlin-based > > ResearchGate is by some way the world's biggest academic social network, > > used by about 60 per cent of academics, particularly in the physical and > > life sciences, and has raised nearly $90 million (?68 million) in funding > > from investors, according to the website Crunchbase. > > > > > > > > Publishers are seeing "anecdotal" evidence that the availability of > >papers > > on the site is eating into their revenues, said Dr Milne. "We have heard > > during the subscriptions renewal process that librarians are occasionally > > referencing ResearchGate as an alternative to resubscribing to journals," > > he said. > > > > > > > > He attacked ResearchGate as being "backed by hundreds of millions of > > dollars [from venture capitalists,] who are seeking to make a profit from > > what [ResearchGate] do, which is upload copyright infringed material". > > > > > > > > "They put nothing back into the process for generating and validating and > > curating all that material," he said. > > > > > > > > The publisher Elsevier drew a backlash from many academics in 2013 when > >it > > told users of Academia.edu, a rival to ResearchGate, to take down papers > >to > > which it had rights. Dr Milne stressed that this time, the publishers > >would > > not directly send take-down notices to academics. "We will work with > > ResearchGate on this, not researchers," he said, although the > >organisation > > would be communicating "en masse" with academics about how they can share > > their work properly. > > > > > > > > But for the publishers, sending out mass take-down notices is not a > > permanent solution. "That in itself doesn't solve the problem, because > > every day ResearchGate is uploading more and more material," said Dr > >Milne, > > trapping publishers in a "perpetual loop" of having to identify > >infringing > > papers. He argued that this would be confusing for researchers, as "one > >day > > there's content, and the next day there isn't", he said. > > > > > > > > Elsevier and the American Chemical Society are therefore also taking > > ResearchGate to court where they hope to obtain a ruling that would stop > > ResearchGate "scraping content off the web, uploading it...and asking > > researchers to claim it" so that infringing material "is not in the > >public > > domain", he explained. The court claim would be lodged in Europe, he > >said. > > > > > > > > A ResearchGate spokeswoman declined to comment. The company's founder and > > chief executive, Ijad Madisch, has previously said that he "wouldn't > >mind" > > if copyrighted material was removed from the site, as researchers could > > continue to share papers privately. > > > > > > > > david.matthews@timeshighereducation.com > timeshighered > > ucation.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 9 17:04:38 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 17:04:38 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate In-Reply-To: <1507583473996.60088@iped.uio.no> References: <1507462271698.29592@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F93888181D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX05.osuad.osu.edu> <1507583473996.60088@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Nice to see you kind regards, Annalisa-- I have no sophisticated argument about fair use. the x in xlchc referred simultaneously to people who had spent time at the lab and now could remain connected to each other to continue pursuing joint educational/research concerns. Then it sort of became not x as in ex but x and in extended. It was conceived as a more or less natural extension, given evolving communication technologies, of the lchc seminars which were definitely educational fora. To the extent that participants are contributing to that effort through their participation in the discussion, either directly, or as they think about the discussion they are listening to later in connection with their work, I hope can remain an educational forum. Hopefully plans for a new MCA web page will upgrade this antiquated discourse mode for one more in keeping with the times. But until then, here we are so its seems just common sense to make the best use of it. :-) mike On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Very strong metaphor the one with the raccoon trap, Annalisa. Mike will > surely address your questions better, but, while I see how xmca is an > educational forum and I would and do encourage all authors to share their > work here, it is not a 'publishing model', which seems to be what you are > trying to work out. > > In support of the legitimate sharing of work that xmca supports as an > educational forum, even T&F is happy to release open access one article per > issue during a couple of months only for us to discuss it here, in addition > to us sharing the PDF here. So now, Carrie Lobman's article is open access > for everyone thanks to this educative/scholarly initiative we try to > sustain here. Not to mention, as Mike says, the open access to the > perennial discussions topics. > > I think Michael G's comments comparing Research Gate and Academia.edu with > Facebook's role in the elections are very enlightening, for it really is a > concern not only of some making profit, but also on how these digital > networks may transform the way we produce and consume research by reasons > other than good/progress. > > Long life to educational forums like this one! > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar > Sent: 09 October 2017 22:45 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers > from ResearchGate > > Hi Mike, > > > I've been watching this thread, but this is the first opportunity I've had > to post so sorry I'm late to the conversation. > > > It appears that the way XMCA is able to function under the radar (and > rightfully so) is the assertion that this is an educational forum (and a > long-standing one at that!) and we as scholars are required access to > copyrighted material so that we can do our work, so this falls under fair > use. > > > Is that basically the gist of the matter for this copyright challenge by > academic publishers? > > > I ask because I am constructing a publishing model that might have similar > challenges, and forearmed is forewarned. We had discussed it once. > > > What I wonder is if the VC's who have created these social networks have > gotten themselves caught in a raccoon trap? [http://image.sportsmansguide. > com/adimgs/l/1/186667_ts.jpg ] > > > These traps function by enticing the racoon with a shiny obect, but it > can't get it out of the hole without letting go of the shiny object, and so > it stays around trying to figure out how to get the shiny object out. > Reaching in and letting go and reaching in and letting go. It's futile and > impossible, if you are a raccoon that is. > > > Kind regards, > > > Annalisa > > [http://image.sportsmansguide.com/adimgs/l/1/186667_ts.jpg] > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of mike cole > Sent: Monday, October 9, 2017 10:01 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from > ResearchGate > > Hi Anne Nelly- > > There are two unpublished studies of earlier eras of xmca on the website at > lchcautobio.ucsd.edu. We have pretty good archives back to the mid 1980's > but so far as I know, no one has take them as an object of study. I use > them as > a source of information about perennial discussion topics. > > Its open source! > :-) > mike > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 12:50 AM, PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly < > Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch> wrote: > > > Mike > > has someone written the history of LCHC and xmca and of its pioneering > > technical/socio-cultural "educational" innovations? > > Xmcy was the first electronic list I ever signed up to. > > > > Anne-Nelly > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : on behalf of mike cole > > > > R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > Date : dimanche, 8 octobre 2017 22:35 > > ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers > > from ResearchGate > > > > Alfredo, Anne Nelly et al --- > > > > The difficulties to accessing academic research at play in this > discussion > > motivates my long time treatment of xlchc/xmca as an *educational * > > facility. > > If you check out the cluster map of xmca that tells you where people are > > connecting from, it gives you are pretty good idea of who has interest > and > > access. ( https://clustrmaps.com/site/17i ) > > > > A LOT of those visitors do not have access to the articles, never mind > the > > books, that we seek to discuss here in order to educate ourselves and our > > students in fundamental questions about human development in its > cultural, > > historical, social contexts. If we do not post such materials, we are > > sealed off from each other as in the past. > > > > Lets hope that going forward, MCA and this discussion group can hold > itself > > together as an educational community sufficiently to ward off the digital > > overseers. > > > > Its not clear how to get to open access, but this has been lchc's way of > > trying. > > > > mike > > > > On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Glassman, Michael > > wrote: > > > > > The trouble we are facing is that ademia.edu and researchgate are not > > > organizations that were formed to serve the public good. They will only > > > function as Open Educational Resources as long as it suits their needs. > > > They are instead being funded by large amounts of venture capital. > > > Eventually these people are going to want their profits. What is scary > > >is > > > we cannot know what this means. What happened with Facebook and the > > > election is the canary in the coal mine (much bigger than a canary > > > though). For those who don't know what happened not so good sources > used > > > targeted advertising of Facebook, and my guess is Google as well, to > > > manipulate outcomes. Targeted advertising is when you discuss a trip > to > > > Bahamas in a gmail discussion and then the next time you log on to > gmail > > > there is an advertisement for a hotel in the Bahamas. Up to now it has > > >been > > > freaky but not really dangerous. There is not much discussion of > exactly > > > what happened other than Russian (and my guess is other groups) used > > > targeted advertising. A guess how that happened. People all over the > > > country were talking about Hillary Clinton's emails in the last few > weeks > > > of the campaign. Facebook is able to aggregate the people who were > > >actually > > > talking about this on their Facebook pages. They are also able to > locate > > > them according to region. Organizations then use this information to > > >target > > > people specifically in swing states with advertisements that are > > >disguised > > > as news items. So on Monday you write a comment, "I really wonder what > is > > > going on with Hillary's emails" and on Tuesday you get a directed > > > advertisement with claims what is happening with Hillary's emails that > > > claims legitimacy. This is incredibly powerful. Mark Zuckerberg the > > > founder of Facebook as said he won't allow this to happen again (at > first > > > he denied it) but I'm not so sure how. Targeted advertising is how > > > Facebook and Google make a lot of their money. > > > > > > I worry about the things academia.edu and researchgate.net might do > > (full > > > disclosure, I am on both because they are becoming the only way to > reach > > > many fellow researchers). What happens when the funds that have been > > > feeding them money demand their profit? Nobody would have predicted > what > > > happened with targeted advertising. How will research dissemination be > > > manipulated? I don't know what the solution to this is but we need to > be > > > very careful. > > > > > > I question why universities did not step into the breach, to create > Open > > > Educational Resources that were not beholden to profit. It's not like > > >they > > > didn't know this was coming and OER was a possibility. > > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ > > > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of PERRET-CLERMONT Anne-Nelly > > > Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2017 9:20 AM > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; > > > xmca-l@ucsd.edu > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers > from > > > ResearchGate > > > > > > Thanks for these very interesting links. > > > > > > The new political line of the Swiss National Research Foundation (SNSF) > > >on > > > these issues is very interesting: > > > "The results of research financed by public funds should be published > > > electronically so that they are freely and immediately available > without > > > charge and can thus be reused by third parties, since they are > considered > > > as a public good. In support of the principle of Open Access, the SNSF > > > expects grantees to make the results of the research projects it has > > > supported accessible to the public". > > > This will concern almost all scientists in Switzerland. See: > > > > > > http://www.snf.ch/en/theSNSF/research-policies/open-access/ > > > Pages/default.as > > > px > > > > > > Anne-Nelly > > > > > > > > > Prof. em. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont > > > Institut de psychologie et ?ducation Facult? des lettres et sciences > > > humaines Universit? de Neuch?tel Espace L. Agassiz 1, CH- 2000 > Neuch?tel > > > (Switzerland) > > perret_clermont> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > > De : on behalf of Alfredo Jornet > Gil < > > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> R?pondre ? : "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < > > > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> Date : dimanche, 8 octobre 2017 13:31 ? : " > > > xmca-l@ucsd.edu" , "eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity" < > > > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> Objet : [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal > of > > > millions of > > > papers from ResearchGate > > > > > > That's a complex matter, Peter. Thanks for sharing. I wonder what the > > > views of others are. I am still forming mine, but would like to > > >contribute > > > with another resource to do so, an article from The Guardian on > > >profitable > > > business scientific publishing > > > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/ > > > profitable-business-scienti > > > fic-publishing-bad-for-science > > > > > > Alfredo > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > on behalf of Peter Smagorinsky > > > Sent: 07 October 2017 17:31 > > > To: xmca-l@ucsd.edu > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from > > > ResearchGate > > > > > > https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/publishers-seek-removal- > > > millions- > > > papers-researchgate > > > > > > > > > > > > Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate > > > > > > Academic social network accused of infringing copyright on a massive > > >scale > > > > > > Leading publishers are stepping up their fight against ResearchGate by > > > ordering the academic social network to take down papers that they say > > > infringe copyright. > > > > > > The move could see millions of articles removed from the site, as the > > > publishers say up to 40 per cent of papers on ResearchGate are > > >copyrighted. > > > > > > James Milne, a spokesman for the group of five academic publishers, > which > > > includes Elsevier, Wiley and Brill, said that the first batch of > > >take-down > > > notices would be sent "imminently". > > > > > > > > > > > > "We're not doing this in any way against the researchers, we're doing > > >this > > > against ResearchGate," he told Times Higher Education. The site was > > > "clearly hosting and happily uploading material that they know they > don't > > > have the license or copyrights" to, and was "refusing to work with us > to > > > solve that problem", he added. > > > > > > > > > > > > According to a survey of academics released last year, Berlin-based > > > ResearchGate is by some way the world's biggest academic social > network, > > > used by about 60 per cent of academics, particularly in the physical > and > > > life sciences, and has raised nearly $90 million (?68 million) in > funding > > > from investors, according to the website Crunchbase. > > > > > > > > > > > > Publishers are seeing "anecdotal" evidence that the availability of > > >papers > > > on the site is eating into their revenues, said Dr Milne. "We have > heard > > > during the subscriptions renewal process that librarians are > occasionally > > > referencing ResearchGate as an alternative to resubscribing to > journals," > > > he said. > > > > > > > > > > > > He attacked ResearchGate as being "backed by hundreds of millions of > > > dollars [from venture capitalists,] who are seeking to make a profit > from > > > what [ResearchGate] do, which is upload copyright infringed material". > > > > > > > > > > > > "They put nothing back into the process for generating and validating > and > > > curating all that material," he said. > > > > > > > > > > > > The publisher Elsevier drew a backlash from many academics in 2013 when > > >it > > > told users of Academia.edu, a rival to ResearchGate, to take down > papers > > >to > > > which it had rights. Dr Milne stressed that this time, the publishers > > >would > > > not directly send take-down notices to academics. "We will work with > > > ResearchGate on this, not researchers," he said, although the > > >organisation > > > would be communicating "en masse" with academics about how they can > share > > > their work properly. > > > > > > > > > > > > But for the publishers, sending out mass take-down notices is not a > > > permanent solution. "That in itself doesn't solve the problem, because > > > every day ResearchGate is uploading more and more material," said Dr > > >Milne, > > > trapping publishers in a "perpetual loop" of having to identify > > >infringing > > > papers. He argued that this would be confusing for researchers, as "one > > >day > > > there's content, and the next day there isn't", he said. > > > > > > > > > > > > Elsevier and the American Chemical Society are therefore also taking > > > ResearchGate to court where they hope to obtain a ruling that would > stop > > > ResearchGate "scraping content off the web, uploading it...and asking > > > researchers to claim it" so that infringing material "is not in the > > >public > > > domain", he explained. The court claim would be lodged in Europe, he > > >said. > > > > > > > > > > > > A ResearchGate spokeswoman declined to comment. The company's founder > and > > > chief executive, Ijad Madisch, has previously said that he "wouldn't > > >mind" > > > if copyrighted material was removed from the site, as researchers could > > > continue to share papers privately. > > > > > > > > > > > > david.matthews@timeshighereducation.com > > timeshighered > > > ucation.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca Tue Oct 10 14:20:06 2017 From: j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca (Vadeboncoeur, Jennifer) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 21:20:06 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] articles by Braten Message-ID: <36AABB37-7059-431E-9DD2-5A72C412765A@mail.ubc.ca> Dear XMCA Folks, I?m having trouble getting copies of two articles by Braten published in the Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research in 1991, 35(3) and 35(4); my library does not have access to the journal. If anyone has a pdf copy of them and can share it with me (perhaps just a personal copy so no one is at risk for sharing?), I would really appreciate it. The two titles are, Vygotsky as precursor to metacognitive theory I and Vygotsky as precursor to metacognitive theory II. With thanks, Jen From j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca Tue Oct 10 14:56:47 2017 From: j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca (Vadeboncoeur, Jennifer) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 21:56:47 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] thanks! Message-ID: Thanks go to Martin, really appreciated! Best, Jen From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Tue Oct 10 14:59:06 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 21:59:06 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: thanks! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1507672746360.83221@iped.uio.no> Great! A ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Vadeboncoeur, Jennifer Sent: 10 October 2017 23:56 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] thanks! Thanks go to Martin, really appreciated! Best, Jen From j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca Tue Oct 10 15:11:19 2017 From: j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca (Vadeboncoeur, Jennifer) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 22:11:19 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] special thanks! Message-ID: <1C26DD8C-AC28-41B1-9CB9-FAC03A98157B@mail.ubc.ca> Special thanks to my amazing colleagues, Alfredo and Jesse, as well! jen From annalisa@unm.edu Tue Oct 10 15:16:22 2017 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 22:16:22 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate In-Reply-To: References: <1507462271698.29592@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F93888181D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX05.osuad.osu.edu> <1507583473996.60088@iped.uio.no>, Message-ID: Mike and Alfredo and beautiful readers and experienced thinkers, Respectfully, I am gently pushing back that indeed this forum is a publishing model (of many possible models), because we are indeed making our writing public (which by the way has a similar word stem) by writing the posts we do to XMCA. It is just that it is not the identical to the publishing model of Print, and so, we are essentially using an old word in a new way, but I would almost say its use is executed with a more faithful definition of the word "publish," as it is bypassing the process of the printing press with ink made from carbon and paper made from wood pulp, and its subsequent physical distribution through shipping to the reader and so on, which I imagine makes the rocks and trees happy, pixels being what they are. I suggest this means we reacquaint ourselves to the true meaning of the word, and extricate ourselves as having a limited meaning of "publish" with print and paper, and try an association with The Act of making our words known publicly, even as we are our own editors to one another. For the sake of this argument: didn't Martin Luther publish his theses when he nailed them to the door of All Saints Church in Wittenberg (on Oct 31 1517... hey that means the 500th anniversary of this event is in a few weeks, by golly)? This is not to note the content of the theses, but the act itself? According to Wikipedia, that well-published sage declares: "The Latin Theses were printed in several locations in Germany in 1517. In January 1518 friends of Luther translated the Ninety-five Theses from Latin into German.Within two weeks, copies of the theses had spread throughout Germany; within two months, they had spread throughout Europe." Today this post will travel much faster than Martin Luther's Theses and to a larger world than his, but I feel he and I make the same gesture, we perform an act of speech, although in the form of text, publicly, with the intentions to better develop minds in our human society. Hope that that isn't too grandiose a statement to compare myself to Luther, but I think in some ways anyone who seeks interaction with others through writing, places us all on equal standing, and with the same potential of changing hearts and minds, as Luther did in his time. Really it depends upon the courage one has to speak one's mind and face the consequences of doing so, and not so much on whether a print publisher will object to lost revenue. Is that fair to say? The pesky part with which we have to contend in this Internet age, are the middlemen, such as gatekeepers and lawyers. We also must consider what is intellectual property, which, to me, then funnels to the questions of copyright and fair use. So that's the thread of my thinking on this. I'm curious how these things were dealt with at the time of the invention of the Printing Press and how it was that attribution was "policed." Maybe someone has something historical to say about that? I did also look at the wiki entry for Copyright - Fair Use and Fair Dealing and found there this text (here --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Fair_use_and_fair_dealing ) "The statute does not clearly define fair use, but instead gives four non-exclusive factors to consider in a fair use analysis. Those factors are: 1. the purpose and character of one's use 2. the nature of the copyrighted work 3. what amount and proportion of the whole work was taken, and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." It seems to me if there is a way to justify, as has been shown in the music industry, that an artist or author can increase the "market for or value of the copyrighted work" by having a wider distribution, that will take care of #4. What academic does not want wider distribution? In my estimation, it is up to the print journals to figure out a way to innovate alongside or despite the distribution of digital media, instead of setting litigation fires against the distribution of journal articles as digital media. It seems that is what has happened in academic publishing. This putting the genie back in the bottle is foolish. The DMCA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act) is one of many attempts to return the genie to the bottle, if it can be shown that "the manufacture, importation, or distribution of devices whose intended use, or only significant commercial use, is to bypass an access or copy control put in place by a copyright owner." If only the inventors of the internet could be shown to have intentions to bypass access of copy controls. Or inventors of magnetic tape for that matter. It just seems silly. So my question to Mike was asked with this in mind. Can it be said that as scholars sharing ideas in peer review, which fulfills factors #1 and #2 above for fair use, could indeed override factors #3 and #4 for fair use? For merits of argument only and respectfully asked, can't it be that posting a PDF of Cultural Psychology, by Mike Cole on the XMCA list, in its entirety, were it done in context of scholarly reference and for examination of its contents among a society of scholars, be enough of a safe threshold for fair use? Would it make Belknap Press (who published the print version of the book) or Mike be compelled sue the person who posted it? I don't know what that means, and it seems a grey area people don't really want to figure out. In that same thinking, is the threshold less so, the same, or more so for a published article? Or how about a draft of a paper? We are witnesses to the development of the Internet, which in the end bypasses the controls on copyright, and because it does, it seems we must then rely upon the factors of fair use. So I would think that posting the book in PDF online would be acceptable, as long as, if I were to post it, I was not saying I wrote the book, or that I wasn't selling the book to receive monetary gain, or that I wasn't intending to constrict the market in order to denigrate the book's value. Right? Thinking out loud, but I hope not too loudly. Kind regards, Annalisa From annalisa@unm.edu Tue Oct 10 15:18:39 2017 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 22:18:39 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: thanks! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I would not mind a copy of these papers, actually. That is, Martin, if you wouldn't mind to send it. Annalisa From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Oct 10 15:29:59 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 15:29:59 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate In-Reply-To: References: <1507462271698.29592@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F93888181D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX05.osuad.osu.edu> <1507583473996.60088@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: I'll cede expertise on the issues to you, Annalisa! mike On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > Mike and Alfredo and beautiful readers and experienced thinkers, > > > Respectfully, I am gently pushing back that indeed this forum is a > publishing model (of many possible models), because we are indeed making > our writing public (which by the way has a similar word stem) by writing > the posts we do to XMCA. > > It is just that it is not the identical to the publishing model of > Print, and so, we are essentially using an old word in a new way, but I > would almost say its use is executed with a more faithful definition of the > word "publish," as it is bypassing the process of the printing press with > ink made from carbon and paper made from wood pulp, and its subsequent > physical distribution through shipping to the reader and so on, which I > imagine makes the rocks and trees happy, pixels being what they are. > > I suggest this means we reacquaint ourselves to the true meaning of > the word, and extricate ourselves as having a limited meaning of "publish" > with print and paper, and try an association with The Act of making our > words known publicly, even as we are our own editors to one another. > > For the sake of this argument: didn't Martin Luther publish his > theses when he nailed them to the door of All Saints Church in Wittenberg > (on Oct 31 1517... hey that means the 500th anniversary of this event is in > a few weeks, by golly)? This is not to note the content of the theses, but > the act itself? > > > According to Wikipedia, that well-published sage declares: > > > "The Latin Theses were printed in several locations in Germany in > 1517. In January 1518 friends of Luther translated the Ninety-five Theses > from Latin into German.Within two weeks, copies of the theses had spread > throughout Germany; within two months, they had spread throughout Europe." > > Today this post will travel much faster than Martin Luther's Theses > and to a larger world than his, but I feel he and I make the same gesture, > we perform an act of speech, although in the form of text, publicly, with > the intentions to better develop minds in our human society. Hope that that > isn't too grandiose a statement to compare myself to Luther, but I think in > some ways anyone who seeks interaction with others through writing, places > us all on equal standing, and with the same potential of changing hearts > and minds, as Luther did in his time. Really it depends upon the courage > one has to speak one's mind and face the consequences of doing so, and not > so much on whether a print publisher will object to lost revenue. Is that > fair to say? > The pesky part with which we have to contend in this Internet age, > are the middlemen, such as gatekeepers and lawyers. We also must consider > what is intellectual property, which, to me, then funnels to the questions > of copyright and fair use. > So that's the thread of my thinking on this. > I'm curious how these things were dealt with at the time of the > invention of the Printing Press and how it was that attribution was > "policed." Maybe someone has something historical to say about that? > > I did also look at the wiki entry for Copyright - Fair Use and Fair > Dealing and found there this text (here --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > Copyright#Fair_use_and_fair_dealing ) > > "The statute does not clearly define fair use, but instead gives four > non-exclusive factors to consider in a fair use analysis. Those factors are: > > 1. the purpose and character of one's use > 2. the nature of the copyrighted work > 3. what amount and proportion of the whole work was taken, and > 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the > copyrighted work." > > It seems to me if there is a way to justify, as has been shown in the > music industry, that an artist or author can increase the "market for or > value of the copyrighted work" by having a wider distribution, that will > take care of #4. What academic does not want wider distribution? In my > estimation, it is up to the print journals to figure out a way to innovate > alongside or despite the distribution of digital media, instead of setting > litigation fires against the distribution of journal articles as digital > media. It seems that is what has happened in academic publishing. > > > This putting the genie back in the bottle is foolish. > > > The DMCA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act) > is one of many attempts to return the genie to the bottle, if it can be > shown that "the manufacture, importation, or distribution of devices whose > intended use, or only significant commercial use, is to bypass an access or > copy control put in place by a copyright owner." > > > If only the inventors of the internet could be shown to have intentions to > bypass access of copy controls. Or inventors of magnetic tape for that > matter. It just seems silly. > > > So my question to Mike was asked with this in mind. Can it be said that as > scholars sharing ideas in peer review, which fulfills factors #1 and #2 > above for fair use, could indeed override factors #3 and #4 for fair use? > > > For merits of argument only and respectfully asked, can't it be that > posting a PDF of Cultural Psychology, by Mike Cole on the XMCA list, in its > entirety, were it done in context of scholarly reference and for > examination of its contents among a society of scholars, be enough of a > safe threshold for fair use? Would it make Belknap Press (who published the > print version of the book) or Mike be compelled sue the person who posted > it? I don't know what that means, and it seems a grey area people don't > really want to figure out. > > > In that same thinking, is the threshold less so, the same, or more so for > a published article? Or how about a draft of a paper? > > We are witnesses to the development of the Internet, which in the end > bypasses the controls on copyright, and because it does, it seems we must > then rely upon the factors of fair use. So I would think that posting the > book in PDF online would be acceptable, as long as, if I were to post it, I > was not saying I wrote the book, or that I wasn't selling the book to > receive monetary gain, or that I wasn't intending to constrict the market > in order to denigrate the book's value. Right? > > Thinking out loud, but I hope not too loudly. > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > > > From C.Barker@mmu.ac.uk Wed Oct 11 08:57:16 2017 From: C.Barker@mmu.ac.uk (C Barker) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 15:57:16 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Manchester Social Movements Conference - Call for Papers Message-ID: <1507737439586.15380@mmu.ac.uk> SOCIAL MOVEMENTS CONFERENCE - CALL FOR PAPERS >From 1995 to 2017, Manchester Metropolitan University hosted a series of very successful annual international conferences on 'ALTERNATIVE FUTURES and POPULAR PROTEST'. We're very happy to announce that the Twenty Third AF&PP Conference will be held between Monday 26th and Wednesday 28th March 2018. The Conference rubric will remain as in previous years. The aim is to explore the dynamics of popular movements, along with the ideas which animate their activists and supporters and which contribute to shaping their fate. Reflecting the inherent cross-disciplinary nature of the issues, previous participants (from over 60 countries) have come from such specialisms as sociology, politics, cultural studies, social psychology, economics, history and geography. The Manchester conferences have been notable for discovering a fruitful and friendly meeting ground between activism and academia. PRELIMINARY CALL FOR PAPERS We invite offers of papers relevant to the conference themes. Papers should address such matters as: * contemporary and historical social movements and popular protests * social movement theory * utopias and experiments * ideologies of collective action * etc. To offer a paper, please contact either of the conference convenors with a brief abstract: EITHER Colin Barker, email: c.barker@mmu.ac.uk OR Mike Tyldesley, email: m.tyldesley@mmu.ac.uk (Please use email, especially as both Colin Barker and Mike Tyldesley are now retired gents.) CONFERENCE PAPERS One way we organise this particular conference is that we ask those giving papers to supply them in advance, for inclusion in a Dropbox folder of the complete papers which will be available to all delegates from the conference opening. * Preferred method: send the paper to Colin Barker as an email attachment in MS Word or .pdf format. Any separate illustrations etc. should be sent separately, in .jpg format. * Final date for receipt of abstracts: Monday 26th February 2018 * Final date for receipt of actual papers: Monday 12th March 2018 These are final dates. The earlier we receive abstracts, and actual papers, the better. CONFERENCE ARRANGEMENTS AND COSTS The conference will run from lunch-time Monday 26th March until after lunch on Wednesday 28th March 2018. The conference cost will be inclusive of three lunches, teas/coffees. The full cost is ?150.00, with a cost of ?90.00 for students and the unwaged. Please register online at https://www.kxregistration.mmu.ac.uk/AF18 Hotels, hostels and dining out We can supply information about relatively cheap local hotels and hostels. Let us know if you would like this information. We cannot do hotel or hostel bookings for you. Conference participants will be invited to dine together at two local (and not too expensive) restaurants on the two conference evenings. Payment for dinners should not be made in advance, but directly to the restaurants on the night. Please feel free to circulate this to anyone who might be interested. Colin Barker Mike Tyldesley "Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you should read the Manchester Metropolitan University email disclaimer available on its website http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer " From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 11 09:14:44 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:14:44 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Manchester Social Movements Conference - Call for Papers In-Reply-To: <1507737439586.15380@mmu.ac.uk> References: <1507737439586.15380@mmu.ac.uk> Message-ID: Colin! Where have you been when people were discussing social movements! Is the All Stars a social movement? Is it part of a social movement? Seeking enlightenment. :-) mike On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 8:57 AM, C Barker wrote: > SOCIAL MOVEMENTS CONFERENCE - CALL FOR PAPERS > > > > >From 1995 to 2017, Manchester Metropolitan University hosted a series of > very successful annual international conferences on 'ALTERNATIVE FUTURES > and POPULAR PROTEST'. > > > > We're very happy to announce that the Twenty Third AF&PP Conference will > be held between Monday 26th and Wednesday 28th March 2018. > > > > The Conference rubric will remain as in previous years. The aim is to > explore the dynamics of popular movements, along with the ideas which > animate their activists and supporters and which contribute to shaping > their fate. > > > > Reflecting the inherent cross-disciplinary nature of the issues, previous > participants (from over 60 countries) have come from such specialisms as > sociology, politics, cultural studies, social psychology, economics, > history and geography. The Manchester conferences have been notable for > discovering a fruitful and friendly meeting ground between activism and > academia. > > > > PRELIMINARY CALL FOR PAPERS > > > > We invite offers of papers relevant to the conference themes. Papers > should address such matters as: > > > > * contemporary and historical social movements and popular protests > > > > * social movement theory > > > > * utopias and experiments > > > > * ideologies of collective action > > > > * etc. > > > > To offer a paper, please contact either of the conference convenors with a > brief abstract: > > > > EITHER Colin Barker, > > email: c.barker@mmu.ac.uk > > OR Mike Tyldesley, > > email: m.tyldesley@mmu.ac.uk > > (Please use email, especially as both Colin Barker and Mike Tyldesley are > now retired gents.) > > > > CONFERENCE PAPERS > > > > One way we organise this particular conference is that we ask those giving > papers to supply them in advance, for inclusion in a Dropbox folder of the > complete papers which will be available to all delegates from the > conference opening. > > > > * Preferred method: send the paper to Colin Barker as an email attachment > in MS Word or .pdf format. Any separate illustrations etc. should be sent > separately, in .jpg format. > > > > * Final date for receipt of abstracts: Monday 26th February 2018 > > > > * Final date for receipt of actual papers: Monday 12th March 2018 > > > > These are final dates. The earlier we receive abstracts, and actual > papers, the better. > > > > > > CONFERENCE ARRANGEMENTS AND COSTS > > > > The conference will run from lunch-time Monday 26th March until after > lunch on Wednesday 28th March 2018. > > > > The conference cost will be inclusive of three lunches, teas/coffees. The > full cost is ?150.00, with a cost of ?90.00 for students and the unwaged. > Please register online at https://www.kxregistration.mmu.ac.uk/AF18 > > > > Hotels, hostels and dining out > > > > We can supply information about relatively cheap local hotels and hostels. > Let us know if you would like this information. > > > > We cannot do hotel or hostel bookings for you. > > > > Conference participants will be invited to dine together at two local (and > not too expensive) restaurants on the two conference evenings. Payment for > dinners should not be made in advance, but directly to the restaurants on > the night. > > > > Please feel free to circulate this to anyone who might be interested. > > > > Colin Barker > > Mike Tyldesley > > > > > "Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you should read > the Manchester Metropolitan University email disclaimer available on its > website http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer " > From C.Barker@mmu.ac.uk Wed Oct 11 10:48:08 2017 From: C.Barker@mmu.ac.uk (C Barker) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 17:48:08 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Manchester Social Movements Conference - Call for Papers In-Reply-To: References: <1507737439586.15380@mmu.ac.uk>, Message-ID: <1507744091062.2815@mmu.ac.uk> Where have I been? Lurking I guess. As to 'the All Stars', a search on Google made me wonder WHICH All Stars? Louis Armstrong's band? A nursery? "All Stars Project. Inc"? a baseball team? Perhaps Helena or someone else will come to my rescue and say our conference is a good thing, fun, etc. Colin B ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of mike cole Sent: 11 October 2017 17:14 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Manchester Social Movements Conference - Call for Papers Colin! Where have you been when people were discussing social movements! Is the All Stars a social movement? Is it part of a social movement? Seeking enlightenment. :-) mike On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 8:57 AM, C Barker wrote: > SOCIAL MOVEMENTS CONFERENCE - CALL FOR PAPERS > > > > >From 1995 to 2017, Manchester Metropolitan University hosted a series of > very successful annual international conferences on 'ALTERNATIVE FUTURES > and POPULAR PROTEST'. > > > > We're very happy to announce that the Twenty Third AF&PP Conference will > be held between Monday 26th and Wednesday 28th March 2018. > > > > The Conference rubric will remain as in previous years. The aim is to > explore the dynamics of popular movements, along with the ideas which > animate their activists and supporters and which contribute to shaping > their fate. > > > > Reflecting the inherent cross-disciplinary nature of the issues, previous > participants (from over 60 countries) have come from such specialisms as > sociology, politics, cultural studies, social psychology, economics, > history and geography. The Manchester conferences have been notable for > discovering a fruitful and friendly meeting ground between activism and > academia. > > > > PRELIMINARY CALL FOR PAPERS > > > > We invite offers of papers relevant to the conference themes. Papers > should address such matters as: > > > > * contemporary and historical social movements and popular protests > > > > * social movement theory > > > > * utopias and experiments > > > > * ideologies of collective action > > > > * etc. > > > > To offer a paper, please contact either of the conference convenors with a > brief abstract: > > > > EITHER Colin Barker, > > email: c.barker@mmu.ac.uk > > OR Mike Tyldesley, > > email: m.tyldesley@mmu.ac.uk > > (Please use email, especially as both Colin Barker and Mike Tyldesley are > now retired gents.) > > > > CONFERENCE PAPERS > > > > One way we organise this particular conference is that we ask those giving > papers to supply them in advance, for inclusion in a Dropbox folder of the > complete papers which will be available to all delegates from the > conference opening. > > > > * Preferred method: send the paper to Colin Barker as an email attachment > in MS Word or .pdf format. Any separate illustrations etc. should be sent > separately, in .jpg format. > > > > * Final date for receipt of abstracts: Monday 26th February 2018 > > > > * Final date for receipt of actual papers: Monday 12th March 2018 > > > > These are final dates. The earlier we receive abstracts, and actual > papers, the better. > > > > > > CONFERENCE ARRANGEMENTS AND COSTS > > > > The conference will run from lunch-time Monday 26th March until after > lunch on Wednesday 28th March 2018. > > > > The conference cost will be inclusive of three lunches, teas/coffees. The > full cost is ?150.00, with a cost of ?90.00 for students and the unwaged. > Please register online at https://www.kxregistration.mmu.ac.uk/AF18 > > > > Hotels, hostels and dining out > > > > We can supply information about relatively cheap local hotels and hostels. > Let us know if you would like this information. > > > > We cannot do hotel or hostel bookings for you. > > > > Conference participants will be invited to dine together at two local (and > not too expensive) restaurants on the two conference evenings. Payment for > dinners should not be made in advance, but directly to the restaurants on > the night. > > > > Please feel free to circulate this to anyone who might be interested. > > > > Colin Barker > > Mike Tyldesley > > > > > "Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you should read > the Manchester Metropolitan University email disclaimer available on its > website http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer " > "Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you should read the Manchester Metropolitan University email disclaimer available on its website http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer " From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 11 11:03:49 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 11:03:49 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Manchester Social Movements Conference - Call for Papers In-Reply-To: <1507744091062.2815@mmu.ac.uk> References: <1507737439586.15380@mmu.ac.uk> <1507744091062.2815@mmu.ac.uk> Message-ID: Hi Colin -- Voila! mike On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:48 AM, C Barker wrote: > Where have I been? Lurking I guess. As to 'the All Stars', a search on > Google made me wonder WHICH All Stars? Louis Armstrong's band? A nursery? > "All Stars Project. Inc"? a baseball team? > Perhaps Helena or someone else will come to my rescue and say our > conference is a good thing, fun, etc. > > Colin B > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of mike cole > Sent: 11 October 2017 17:14 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Manchester Social Movements Conference - Call for > Papers > > Colin! > > Where have you been when people were discussing social movements! Is the > All Stars a social movement? Is it part of a social movement? > > Seeking enlightenment. :-) > > mike > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 8:57 AM, C Barker wrote: > > > SOCIAL MOVEMENTS CONFERENCE - CALL FOR PAPERS > > > > > > > > >From 1995 to 2017, Manchester Metropolitan University hosted a series of > > very successful annual international conferences on 'ALTERNATIVE FUTURES > > and POPULAR PROTEST'. > > > > > > > > We're very happy to announce that the Twenty Third AF&PP Conference will > > be held between Monday 26th and Wednesday 28th March 2018. > > > > > > > > The Conference rubric will remain as in previous years. The aim is to > > explore the dynamics of popular movements, along with the ideas which > > animate their activists and supporters and which contribute to shaping > > their fate. > > > > > > > > Reflecting the inherent cross-disciplinary nature of the issues, previous > > participants (from over 60 countries) have come from such specialisms as > > sociology, politics, cultural studies, social psychology, economics, > > history and geography. The Manchester conferences have been notable for > > discovering a fruitful and friendly meeting ground between activism and > > academia. > > > > > > > > PRELIMINARY CALL FOR PAPERS > > > > > > > > We invite offers of papers relevant to the conference themes. Papers > > should address such matters as: > > > > > > > > * contemporary and historical social movements and popular protests > > > > > > > > * social movement theory > > > > > > > > * utopias and experiments > > > > > > > > * ideologies of collective action > > > > > > > > * etc. > > > > > > > > To offer a paper, please contact either of the conference convenors with > a > > brief abstract: > > > > > > > > EITHER Colin Barker, > > > > email: c.barker@mmu.ac.uk > > > > OR Mike Tyldesley, > > > > email: m.tyldesley@mmu.ac.uk > > > > (Please use email, especially as both Colin Barker and Mike Tyldesley are > > now retired gents.) > > > > > > > > CONFERENCE PAPERS > > > > > > > > One way we organise this particular conference is that we ask those > giving > > papers to supply them in advance, for inclusion in a Dropbox folder of > the > > complete papers which will be available to all delegates from the > > conference opening. > > > > > > > > * Preferred method: send the paper to Colin Barker as an email attachment > > in MS Word or .pdf format. Any separate illustrations etc. should be sent > > separately, in .jpg format. > > > > > > > > * Final date for receipt of abstracts: Monday 26th February 2018 > > > > > > > > * Final date for receipt of actual papers: Monday 12th March 2018 > > > > > > > > These are final dates. The earlier we receive abstracts, and actual > > papers, the better. > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFERENCE ARRANGEMENTS AND COSTS > > > > > > > > The conference will run from lunch-time Monday 26th March until after > > lunch on Wednesday 28th March 2018. > > > > > > > > The conference cost will be inclusive of three lunches, teas/coffees. The > > full cost is ?150.00, with a cost of ?90.00 for students and the unwaged. > > Please register online at https://www.kxregistration.mmu.ac.uk/AF18 > > > > > > > > Hotels, hostels and dining out > > > > > > > > We can supply information about relatively cheap local hotels and > hostels. > > Let us know if you would like this information. > > > > > > > > We cannot do hotel or hostel bookings for you. > > > > > > > > Conference participants will be invited to dine together at two local > (and > > not too expensive) restaurants on the two conference evenings. Payment > for > > dinners should not be made in advance, but directly to the restaurants on > > the night. > > > > > > > > Please feel free to circulate this to anyone who might be interested. > > > > > > > > Colin Barker > > > > Mike Tyldesley > > > > > > > > > > "Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you should read > > the Manchester Metropolitan University email disclaimer available on its > > website http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer " > > > "Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you should read > the Manchester Metropolitan University email disclaimer available on its > website http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer " > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: lobman.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1315593 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171011/6f0c6a78/attachment-0001.pdf From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Wed Oct 11 11:13:20 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 18:13:20 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Manchester Social Movements Conference - Call for Papers In-Reply-To: <1507744091062.2815@mmu.ac.uk> References: <1507737439586.15380@mmu.ac.uk>, , <1507744091062.2815@mmu.ac.uk> Message-ID: <1507745600329.47786@iped.uio.no> Hi Colin, and thanks for sharing about the conference. I think the all Stars Mike refers to features in the current article for discussion (see attached, or downloadable from here : http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2017.1315673 I guess, Mike, your question leads to a all possible ways of defining and categorising by types social movement. I wonder what Carrie, or Louis themselves would say about it. Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of C Barker Sent: 11 October 2017 19:48 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Manchester Social Movements Conference - Call for Papers Where have I been? Lurking I guess. As to 'the All Stars', a search on Google made me wonder WHICH All Stars? Louis Armstrong's band? A nursery? "All Stars Project. Inc"? a baseball team? Perhaps Helena or someone else will come to my rescue and say our conference is a good thing, fun, etc. Colin B ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of mike cole Sent: 11 October 2017 17:14 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Manchester Social Movements Conference - Call for Papers Colin! Where have you been when people were discussing social movements! Is the All Stars a social movement? Is it part of a social movement? Seeking enlightenment. :-) mike On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 8:57 AM, C Barker wrote: > SOCIAL MOVEMENTS CONFERENCE - CALL FOR PAPERS > > > > >From 1995 to 2017, Manchester Metropolitan University hosted a series of > very successful annual international conferences on 'ALTERNATIVE FUTURES > and POPULAR PROTEST'. > > > > We're very happy to announce that the Twenty Third AF&PP Conference will > be held between Monday 26th and Wednesday 28th March 2018. > > > > The Conference rubric will remain as in previous years. The aim is to > explore the dynamics of popular movements, along with the ideas which > animate their activists and supporters and which contribute to shaping > their fate. > > > > Reflecting the inherent cross-disciplinary nature of the issues, previous > participants (from over 60 countries) have come from such specialisms as > sociology, politics, cultural studies, social psychology, economics, > history and geography. The Manchester conferences have been notable for > discovering a fruitful and friendly meeting ground between activism and > academia. > > > > PRELIMINARY CALL FOR PAPERS > > > > We invite offers of papers relevant to the conference themes. Papers > should address such matters as: > > > > * contemporary and historical social movements and popular protests > > > > * social movement theory > > > > * utopias and experiments > > > > * ideologies of collective action > > > > * etc. > > > > To offer a paper, please contact either of the conference convenors with a > brief abstract: > > > > EITHER Colin Barker, > > email: c.barker@mmu.ac.uk > > OR Mike Tyldesley, > > email: m.tyldesley@mmu.ac.uk > > (Please use email, especially as both Colin Barker and Mike Tyldesley are > now retired gents.) > > > > CONFERENCE PAPERS > > > > One way we organise this particular conference is that we ask those giving > papers to supply them in advance, for inclusion in a Dropbox folder of the > complete papers which will be available to all delegates from the > conference opening. > > > > * Preferred method: send the paper to Colin Barker as an email attachment > in MS Word or .pdf format. Any separate illustrations etc. should be sent > separately, in .jpg format. > > > > * Final date for receipt of abstracts: Monday 26th February 2018 > > > > * Final date for receipt of actual papers: Monday 12th March 2018 > > > > These are final dates. The earlier we receive abstracts, and actual > papers, the better. > > > > > > CONFERENCE ARRANGEMENTS AND COSTS > > > > The conference will run from lunch-time Monday 26th March until after > lunch on Wednesday 28th March 2018. > > > > The conference cost will be inclusive of three lunches, teas/coffees. The > full cost is ?150.00, with a cost of ?90.00 for students and the unwaged. > Please register online at https://www.kxregistration.mmu.ac.uk/AF18 > > > > Hotels, hostels and dining out > > > > We can supply information about relatively cheap local hotels and hostels. > Let us know if you would like this information. > > > > We cannot do hotel or hostel bookings for you. > > > > Conference participants will be invited to dine together at two local (and > not too expensive) restaurants on the two conference evenings. Payment for > dinners should not be made in advance, but directly to the restaurants on > the night. > > > > Please feel free to circulate this to anyone who might be interested. > > > > Colin Barker > > Mike Tyldesley > > > > > "Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you should read > the Manchester Metropolitan University email disclaimer available on its > website http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer " > "Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you should read the Manchester Metropolitan University email disclaimer available on its website http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer " -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Lobman 2017 Performing on a Wider Stage Developing Inner City Youth Through Play and Performance.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1341927 bytes Desc: Lobman 2017 Performing on a Wider Stage Developing Inner City Youth Through Play and Performance.pdf Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171011/0bf900cd/attachment-0001.pdf From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Wed Oct 11 11:13:55 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 18:13:55 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Manchester Social Movements Conference - Call for Papers In-Reply-To: References: <1507737439586.15380@mmu.ac.uk> <1507744091062.2815@mmu.ac.uk>, Message-ID: <1507745635518.14658@iped.uio.no> Ops, now you got two copies! Thanks Mike, Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of mike cole Sent: 11 October 2017 20:03 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Manchester Social Movements Conference - Call for Papers Hi Colin -- Voila! mike On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:48 AM, C Barker wrote: > Where have I been? Lurking I guess. As to 'the All Stars', a search on > Google made me wonder WHICH All Stars? Louis Armstrong's band? A nursery? > "All Stars Project. Inc"? a baseball team? > Perhaps Helena or someone else will come to my rescue and say our > conference is a good thing, fun, etc. > > Colin B > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of mike cole > Sent: 11 October 2017 17:14 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Manchester Social Movements Conference - Call for > Papers > > Colin! > > Where have you been when people were discussing social movements! Is the > All Stars a social movement? Is it part of a social movement? > > Seeking enlightenment. :-) > > mike > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 8:57 AM, C Barker wrote: > > > SOCIAL MOVEMENTS CONFERENCE - CALL FOR PAPERS > > > > > > > > >From 1995 to 2017, Manchester Metropolitan University hosted a series of > > very successful annual international conferences on 'ALTERNATIVE FUTURES > > and POPULAR PROTEST'. > > > > > > > > We're very happy to announce that the Twenty Third AF&PP Conference will > > be held between Monday 26th and Wednesday 28th March 2018. > > > > > > > > The Conference rubric will remain as in previous years. The aim is to > > explore the dynamics of popular movements, along with the ideas which > > animate their activists and supporters and which contribute to shaping > > their fate. > > > > > > > > Reflecting the inherent cross-disciplinary nature of the issues, previous > > participants (from over 60 countries) have come from such specialisms as > > sociology, politics, cultural studies, social psychology, economics, > > history and geography. The Manchester conferences have been notable for > > discovering a fruitful and friendly meeting ground between activism and > > academia. > > > > > > > > PRELIMINARY CALL FOR PAPERS > > > > > > > > We invite offers of papers relevant to the conference themes. Papers > > should address such matters as: > > > > > > > > * contemporary and historical social movements and popular protests > > > > > > > > * social movement theory > > > > > > > > * utopias and experiments > > > > > > > > * ideologies of collective action > > > > > > > > * etc. > > > > > > > > To offer a paper, please contact either of the conference convenors with > a > > brief abstract: > > > > > > > > EITHER Colin Barker, > > > > email: c.barker@mmu.ac.uk > > > > OR Mike Tyldesley, > > > > email: m.tyldesley@mmu.ac.uk > > > > (Please use email, especially as both Colin Barker and Mike Tyldesley are > > now retired gents.) > > > > > > > > CONFERENCE PAPERS > > > > > > > > One way we organise this particular conference is that we ask those > giving > > papers to supply them in advance, for inclusion in a Dropbox folder of > the > > complete papers which will be available to all delegates from the > > conference opening. > > > > > > > > * Preferred method: send the paper to Colin Barker as an email attachment > > in MS Word or .pdf format. Any separate illustrations etc. should be sent > > separately, in .jpg format. > > > > > > > > * Final date for receipt of abstracts: Monday 26th February 2018 > > > > > > > > * Final date for receipt of actual papers: Monday 12th March 2018 > > > > > > > > These are final dates. The earlier we receive abstracts, and actual > > papers, the better. > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFERENCE ARRANGEMENTS AND COSTS > > > > > > > > The conference will run from lunch-time Monday 26th March until after > > lunch on Wednesday 28th March 2018. > > > > > > > > The conference cost will be inclusive of three lunches, teas/coffees. The > > full cost is ?150.00, with a cost of ?90.00 for students and the unwaged. > > Please register online at https://www.kxregistration.mmu.ac.uk/AF18 > > > > > > > > Hotels, hostels and dining out > > > > > > > > We can supply information about relatively cheap local hotels and > hostels. > > Let us know if you would like this information. > > > > > > > > We cannot do hotel or hostel bookings for you. > > > > > > > > Conference participants will be invited to dine together at two local > (and > > not too expensive) restaurants on the two conference evenings. Payment > for > > dinners should not be made in advance, but directly to the restaurants on > > the night. > > > > > > > > Please feel free to circulate this to anyone who might be interested. > > > > > > > > Colin Barker > > > > Mike Tyldesley > > > > > > > > > > "Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you should read > > the Manchester Metropolitan University email disclaimer available on its > > website http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer " > > > "Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you should read > the Manchester Metropolitan University email disclaimer available on its > website http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer " > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 11 12:13:37 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 12:13:37 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Manchester Social Movements Conference - Call for Papers In-Reply-To: <1507745635518.14658@iped.uio.no> References: <1507737439586.15380@mmu.ac.uk> <1507744091062.2815@mmu.ac.uk> <1507745635518.14658@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Hi Afredo-- I wonder the same thing. The discussion seemed to get stuck early on. Maybe Colin can help us out! :-) mike On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Ops, now you got two copies! Thanks Mike, > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of mike cole > Sent: 11 October 2017 20:03 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Manchester Social Movements Conference - Call for > Papers > > Hi Colin -- Voila! > > mike > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:48 AM, C Barker wrote: > > > Where have I been? Lurking I guess. As to 'the All Stars', a search on > > Google made me wonder WHICH All Stars? Louis Armstrong's band? A nursery? > > "All Stars Project. Inc"? a baseball team? > > Perhaps Helena or someone else will come to my rescue and say our > > conference is a good thing, fun, etc. > > > > Colin B > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > on behalf of mike cole > > Sent: 11 October 2017 17:14 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Manchester Social Movements Conference - Call for > > Papers > > > > Colin! > > > > Where have you been when people were discussing social movements! Is the > > All Stars a social movement? Is it part of a social movement? > > > > Seeking enlightenment. :-) > > > > mike > > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 8:57 AM, C Barker wrote: > > > > > SOCIAL MOVEMENTS CONFERENCE - CALL FOR PAPERS > > > > > > > > > > > > >From 1995 to 2017, Manchester Metropolitan University hosted a series > of > > > very successful annual international conferences on 'ALTERNATIVE > FUTURES > > > and POPULAR PROTEST'. > > > > > > > > > > > > We're very happy to announce that the Twenty Third AF&PP Conference > will > > > be held between Monday 26th and Wednesday 28th March 2018. > > > > > > > > > > > > The Conference rubric will remain as in previous years. The aim is to > > > explore the dynamics of popular movements, along with the ideas which > > > animate their activists and supporters and which contribute to shaping > > > their fate. > > > > > > > > > > > > Reflecting the inherent cross-disciplinary nature of the issues, > previous > > > participants (from over 60 countries) have come from such specialisms > as > > > sociology, politics, cultural studies, social psychology, economics, > > > history and geography. The Manchester conferences have been notable > for > > > discovering a fruitful and friendly meeting ground between activism and > > > academia. > > > > > > > > > > > > PRELIMINARY CALL FOR PAPERS > > > > > > > > > > > > We invite offers of papers relevant to the conference themes. Papers > > > should address such matters as: > > > > > > > > > > > > * contemporary and historical social movements and popular protests > > > > > > > > > > > > * social movement theory > > > > > > > > > > > > * utopias and experiments > > > > > > > > > > > > * ideologies of collective action > > > > > > > > > > > > * etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > To offer a paper, please contact either of the conference convenors > with > > a > > > brief abstract: > > > > > > > > > > > > EITHER Colin Barker, > > > > > > email: c.barker@mmu.ac.uk > > > > > > OR Mike Tyldesley, > > > > > > email: m.tyldesley@mmu.ac.uk > > > > > > (Please use email, especially as both Colin Barker and Mike Tyldesley > are > > > now retired gents.) > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFERENCE PAPERS > > > > > > > > > > > > One way we organise this particular conference is that we ask those > > giving > > > papers to supply them in advance, for inclusion in a Dropbox folder of > > the > > > complete papers which will be available to all delegates from the > > > conference opening. > > > > > > > > > > > > * Preferred method: send the paper to Colin Barker as an email > attachment > > > in MS Word or .pdf format. Any separate illustrations etc. should be > sent > > > separately, in .jpg format. > > > > > > > > > > > > * Final date for receipt of abstracts: Monday 26th February 2018 > > > > > > > > > > > > * Final date for receipt of actual papers: Monday 12th March 2018 > > > > > > > > > > > > These are final dates. The earlier we receive abstracts, and actual > > > papers, the better. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFERENCE ARRANGEMENTS AND COSTS > > > > > > > > > > > > The conference will run from lunch-time Monday 26th March until after > > > lunch on Wednesday 28th March 2018. > > > > > > > > > > > > The conference cost will be inclusive of three lunches, teas/coffees. > The > > > full cost is ?150.00, with a cost of ?90.00 for students and the > unwaged. > > > Please register online at https://www.kxregistration.mmu.ac.uk/AF18 > > > > > > > > > > > > Hotels, hostels and dining out > > > > > > > > > > > > We can supply information about relatively cheap local hotels and > > hostels. > > > Let us know if you would like this information. > > > > > > > > > > > > We cannot do hotel or hostel bookings for you. > > > > > > > > > > > > Conference participants will be invited to dine together at two local > > (and > > > not too expensive) restaurants on the two conference evenings. Payment > > for > > > dinners should not be made in advance, but directly to the restaurants > on > > > the night. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please feel free to circulate this to anyone who might be interested. > > > > > > > > > > > > Colin Barker > > > > > > Mike Tyldesley > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you should read > > > the Manchester Metropolitan University email disclaimer available on > its > > > website http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer " > > > > > "Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you should read > > the Manchester Metropolitan University email disclaimer available on its > > website http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer " > > > > > > From helenaworthen@gmail.com Wed Oct 11 17:58:58 2017 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 07:58:58 +0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Manchester Social Movements Conference - Call for Papers In-Reply-To: <1507745635518.14658@iped.uio.no> References: <1507737439586.15380@mmu.ac.uk> <1507744091062.2815@mmu.ac.uk> <1507745635518.14658@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Yes, I will certainly come to Colin?s assistance!! This is a wonderful, small conference where students from PhD programs in various countries (mostly Europe and the US, and the presentations are in English) come to bring research that I?ve found fascinating both for theoretical orientation and sheer fresh content. Also presenting are mentors and professors of the students and some people like myself and Joe who come unattached, just to learn. Colin organizes enough pub and restaurant activities to encourage plenty of side conversations. We are seriously thinking of coming again this spring, despite being in Viet Nam right now. Manchester is an endlessly interesting city with manageable museums, especially for labor educators. Manchester Metropolitan is a short bus ride away from City Center but also near some low-cost hotels. H Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com Berkeley, CA 9470 Phone VN 0168 4628562 Blog US/ Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com skype: helena.worthen1 > On Oct 12, 2017, at 1:13 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > Ops, now you got two copies! Thanks Mike, > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of mike cole > Sent: 11 October 2017 20:03 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Manchester Social Movements Conference - Call for Papers > > Hi Colin -- Voila! > > mike > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:48 AM, C Barker wrote: > >> Where have I been? Lurking I guess. As to 'the All Stars', a search on >> Google made me wonder WHICH All Stars? Louis Armstrong's band? A nursery? >> "All Stars Project. Inc"? a baseball team? >> Perhaps Helena or someone else will come to my rescue and say our >> conference is a good thing, fun, etc. >> >> Colin B >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> on behalf of mike cole >> Sent: 11 October 2017 17:14 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Manchester Social Movements Conference - Call for >> Papers >> >> Colin! >> >> Where have you been when people were discussing social movements! Is the >> All Stars a social movement? Is it part of a social movement? >> >> Seeking enlightenment. :-) >> >> mike >> >> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 8:57 AM, C Barker wrote: >> >>> SOCIAL MOVEMENTS CONFERENCE - CALL FOR PAPERS >>> >>> >>> >>>> From 1995 to 2017, Manchester Metropolitan University hosted a series of >>> very successful annual international conferences on 'ALTERNATIVE FUTURES >>> and POPULAR PROTEST'. >>> >>> >>> >>> We're very happy to announce that the Twenty Third AF&PP Conference will >>> be held between Monday 26th and Wednesday 28th March 2018. >>> >>> >>> >>> The Conference rubric will remain as in previous years. The aim is to >>> explore the dynamics of popular movements, along with the ideas which >>> animate their activists and supporters and which contribute to shaping >>> their fate. >>> >>> >>> >>> Reflecting the inherent cross-disciplinary nature of the issues, previous >>> participants (from over 60 countries) have come from such specialisms as >>> sociology, politics, cultural studies, social psychology, economics, >>> history and geography. The Manchester conferences have been notable for >>> discovering a fruitful and friendly meeting ground between activism and >>> academia. >>> >>> >>> >>> PRELIMINARY CALL FOR PAPERS >>> >>> >>> >>> We invite offers of papers relevant to the conference themes. Papers >>> should address such matters as: >>> >>> >>> >>> * contemporary and historical social movements and popular protests >>> >>> >>> >>> * social movement theory >>> >>> >>> >>> * utopias and experiments >>> >>> >>> >>> * ideologies of collective action >>> >>> >>> >>> * etc. >>> >>> >>> >>> To offer a paper, please contact either of the conference convenors with >> a >>> brief abstract: >>> >>> >>> >>> EITHER Colin Barker, >>> >>> email: c.barker@mmu.ac.uk >>> >>> OR Mike Tyldesley, >>> >>> email: m.tyldesley@mmu.ac.uk >>> >>> (Please use email, especially as both Colin Barker and Mike Tyldesley are >>> now retired gents.) >>> >>> >>> >>> CONFERENCE PAPERS >>> >>> >>> >>> One way we organise this particular conference is that we ask those >> giving >>> papers to supply them in advance, for inclusion in a Dropbox folder of >> the >>> complete papers which will be available to all delegates from the >>> conference opening. >>> >>> >>> >>> * Preferred method: send the paper to Colin Barker as an email attachment >>> in MS Word or .pdf format. Any separate illustrations etc. should be sent >>> separately, in .jpg format. >>> >>> >>> >>> * Final date for receipt of abstracts: Monday 26th February 2018 >>> >>> >>> >>> * Final date for receipt of actual papers: Monday 12th March 2018 >>> >>> >>> >>> These are final dates. The earlier we receive abstracts, and actual >>> papers, the better. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> CONFERENCE ARRANGEMENTS AND COSTS >>> >>> >>> >>> The conference will run from lunch-time Monday 26th March until after >>> lunch on Wednesday 28th March 2018. >>> >>> >>> >>> The conference cost will be inclusive of three lunches, teas/coffees. The >>> full cost is ?150.00, with a cost of ?90.00 for students and the unwaged. >>> Please register online at https://www.kxregistration.mmu.ac.uk/AF18 >>> >>> >>> >>> Hotels, hostels and dining out >>> >>> >>> >>> We can supply information about relatively cheap local hotels and >> hostels. >>> Let us know if you would like this information. >>> >>> >>> >>> We cannot do hotel or hostel bookings for you. >>> >>> >>> >>> Conference participants will be invited to dine together at two local >> (and >>> not too expensive) restaurants on the two conference evenings. Payment >> for >>> dinners should not be made in advance, but directly to the restaurants on >>> the night. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please feel free to circulate this to anyone who might be interested. >>> >>> >>> >>> Colin Barker >>> >>> Mike Tyldesley >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you should read >>> the Manchester Metropolitan University email disclaimer available on its >>> website http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer " >>> >> "Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you should read >> the Manchester Metropolitan University email disclaimer available on its >> website http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer " >> >> > From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 11 18:13:55 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 18:13:55 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Manchester Social Movements Conference - Call for Papers In-Reply-To: References: <1507737439586.15380@mmu.ac.uk> <1507744091062.2815@mmu.ac.uk> <1507745635518.14658@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Hi Helena! Can you also come to Colin's assistance in discussing the paper about the All-Stars that is the article de jeur? Andy raised the question of whether its worthwhile to think about whether such efforts constitute social movements. But I am interested in the question. When I do a project like the 5thDimension, and what starts out as just another design experiment turns into a study of sustainability because it "catches on", I do not think of myself as studying social movements. But when an organization has a budget of 10 million dollars a year, and operates on such a large, institutionalized scale, and keeps pushing (say) for social justice by organizing resistance to forced removal from housing, it seems a whole lot like a social movement to me. "What," to quote our friend, Eugene, "do you think?" mike On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Helena Worthen wrote: > Yes, I will certainly come to Colin?s assistance!! This is a wonderful, > small conference where students from PhD programs in various countries > (mostly Europe and the US, and the presentations are in English) come to > bring research that I?ve found fascinating both for theoretical orientation > and sheer fresh content. Also presenting are mentors and professors of the > students and some people like myself and Joe who come unattached, just to > learn. Colin organizes enough pub and restaurant activities to encourage > plenty of side conversations. > > We are seriously thinking of coming again this spring, despite being in > Viet Nam right now. Manchester is an endlessly interesting city with > manageable museums, especially for labor educators. Manchester Metropolitan > is a short bus ride away from City Center but also near some low-cost > hotels. > > H > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > Berkeley, CA 9470 Phone VN 0168 4628562 > Blog US/ Viet Nam: > helenaworthen.wordpress.com > skype: helena.worthen1 > > > > > > > > On Oct 12, 2017, at 1:13 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: > > > > Ops, now you got two copies! Thanks Mike, > > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of mike cole > > Sent: 11 October 2017 20:03 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Manchester Social Movements Conference - Call for > Papers > > > > Hi Colin -- Voila! > > > > mike > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:48 AM, C Barker wrote: > > > >> Where have I been? Lurking I guess. As to 'the All Stars', a search on > >> Google made me wonder WHICH All Stars? Louis Armstrong's band? A > nursery? > >> "All Stars Project. Inc"? a baseball team? > >> Perhaps Helena or someone else will come to my rescue and say our > >> conference is a good thing, fun, etc. > >> > >> Colin B > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> on behalf of mike cole > >> Sent: 11 October 2017 17:14 > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Manchester Social Movements Conference - Call for > >> Papers > >> > >> Colin! > >> > >> Where have you been when people were discussing social movements! Is the > >> All Stars a social movement? Is it part of a social movement? > >> > >> Seeking enlightenment. :-) > >> > >> mike > >> > >> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 8:57 AM, C Barker wrote: > >> > >>> SOCIAL MOVEMENTS CONFERENCE - CALL FOR PAPERS > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> From 1995 to 2017, Manchester Metropolitan University hosted a series > of > >>> very successful annual international conferences on 'ALTERNATIVE > FUTURES > >>> and POPULAR PROTEST'. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> We're very happy to announce that the Twenty Third AF&PP Conference > will > >>> be held between Monday 26th and Wednesday 28th March 2018. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The Conference rubric will remain as in previous years. The aim is to > >>> explore the dynamics of popular movements, along with the ideas which > >>> animate their activists and supporters and which contribute to shaping > >>> their fate. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Reflecting the inherent cross-disciplinary nature of the issues, > previous > >>> participants (from over 60 countries) have come from such specialisms > as > >>> sociology, politics, cultural studies, social psychology, economics, > >>> history and geography. The Manchester conferences have been notable > for > >>> discovering a fruitful and friendly meeting ground between activism and > >>> academia. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> PRELIMINARY CALL FOR PAPERS > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> We invite offers of papers relevant to the conference themes. Papers > >>> should address such matters as: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> * contemporary and historical social movements and popular protests > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> * social movement theory > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> * utopias and experiments > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> * ideologies of collective action > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> * etc. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> To offer a paper, please contact either of the conference convenors > with > >> a > >>> brief abstract: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> EITHER Colin Barker, > >>> > >>> email: c.barker@mmu.ac.uk > >>> > >>> OR Mike Tyldesley, > >>> > >>> email: m.tyldesley@mmu.ac.uk > >>> > >>> (Please use email, especially as both Colin Barker and Mike Tyldesley > are > >>> now retired gents.) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> CONFERENCE PAPERS > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> One way we organise this particular conference is that we ask those > >> giving > >>> papers to supply them in advance, for inclusion in a Dropbox folder of > >> the > >>> complete papers which will be available to all delegates from the > >>> conference opening. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> * Preferred method: send the paper to Colin Barker as an email > attachment > >>> in MS Word or .pdf format. Any separate illustrations etc. should be > sent > >>> separately, in .jpg format. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> * Final date for receipt of abstracts: Monday 26th February 2018 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> * Final date for receipt of actual papers: Monday 12th March 2018 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> These are final dates. The earlier we receive abstracts, and actual > >>> papers, the better. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> CONFERENCE ARRANGEMENTS AND COSTS > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The conference will run from lunch-time Monday 26th March until after > >>> lunch on Wednesday 28th March 2018. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The conference cost will be inclusive of three lunches, teas/coffees. > The > >>> full cost is ?150.00, with a cost of ?90.00 for students and the > unwaged. > >>> Please register online at https://www.kxregistration.mmu.ac.uk/AF18 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Hotels, hostels and dining out > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> We can supply information about relatively cheap local hotels and > >> hostels. > >>> Let us know if you would like this information. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> We cannot do hotel or hostel bookings for you. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Conference participants will be invited to dine together at two local > >> (and > >>> not too expensive) restaurants on the two conference evenings. Payment > >> for > >>> dinners should not be made in advance, but directly to the restaurants > on > >>> the night. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Please feel free to circulate this to anyone who might be interested. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Colin Barker > >>> > >>> Mike Tyldesley > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> "Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you should read > >>> the Manchester Metropolitan University email disclaimer available on > its > >>> website http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer " > >>> > >> "Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you should read > >> the Manchester Metropolitan University email disclaimer available on its > >> website http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer " > >> > >> > > > > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 11 19:40:57 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 19:40:57 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: faculty searches at UC San Diego with the Design Lab and the Department of Education Studies In-Reply-To: <74421F5E-99C3-4816-8804-EB425B0371EF@ucsd.edu> References: <74421F5E-99C3-4816-8804-EB425B0371EF@ucsd.edu> Message-ID: Great job for the right person. mike ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: jalevin@ucsd.edu Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 5:56 PM Subject: faculty searches at UC San Diego with the Design Lab and the Department of Education Studies To: Dedre Gentner , Marc Eisenstadt < marc.eisenstadt@gmail.com>, Steve Palmer , Jonathan Grudin , Geoff Hinton , Will Griscom , Chris Dede , Michael Jacobson , Uri Wilensky < uri@northwestern.edu>, Roy Pea , Louis Gomez < lmgomez@ucla.edu>, Chip Bruce , John Seely Brown < jsb@johnseelybrown.com>, Allan Collins , Andy diSessa , Ken Forbus , Barry Fishman , Barbara Means , Shelley Goldman , Ricki Goldman , Yong Zhao , Jim Greeno , Chuck Goodwin , Spiro Maroulis , Dor Abrahamson , Mike Cole , Denis Newman , Jason Ravitz , Mark Schlager , Jeremy Roschelle < Jeremy.Roschelle@sri.com>, Miriam Sherin , Elliot Soloway , Al Stevens Cc: Christoforos Mamas , Carolyn Hofstetter < chofstetter@ucsd.edu>, Cathleen Schangali Dear friends, Don Norman has returned to UCSD to direct the Design Lab here, and that Lab has been given three tenure track faculty position to search for this year, two at the Assistant Professor level and one at an Associate/Full Professor level. Each person hired needs to be located in an academic Department, and my Department of Education Studies is working with the Design Lab (along with other Departments) on two of the searches (the senior search and one of the two junior searches). Please pass along this information to anyone that you think would be interested in and appropriate for either of these searches: *Associate or Full Professor in Design/Jacobs School of Engineering/Social Sciences/Health Sciences:* https://apol-recruit.ucsd.edu/apply/JPF01570 *Assistant Professor in Design/Division of Social Sciences or School of Medicine:* https://apol-recruit.ucsd.edu/apply/JPF01567 All three searches are described at: *http://designlab.ucsd.edu/join-us/faculty/ * Jim Levin Professor Emeritus Department of Education Studies From helenaworthen@gmail.com Thu Oct 12 01:05:00 2017 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 15:05:00 +0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Does the All-Stars article document a social movement? In-Reply-To: References: <1507737439586.15380@mmu.ac.uk> <1507744091062.2815@mmu.ac.uk> <1507745635518.14658@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Hello, Sorry to be so late to the conversation. I would not characterize the All Stars activity described in the Lobman paper as part of a social movement. I will accept that by bringing a group of disadvanged minority youth to the offices of a bank in Manhattan and having them engage a group of bank employees in some theater games, both groups can learn something. I can also see that because the rules of the theater games create a ?stage? for a performance that would never happen under the rules of the bank office culture, participants on both sides get a glimpse of 1) how much behavior is governed by the unspoken rules and 2) the reality that those rules can be temporarily suspended or changed. This lesson my be transferrable to a social movement context - for example, Occupy changed the rules about whether you could create andmove into a tent city in a small public park not far from where that bank may have been located. But I don?t think that?s what the article about. If this activity is part of a social movement, what social movement are we talking about? The civil rights movement? There?s nothing in here about the collective power of the minority youth to change the balance of power that keeps them poor. The paper raises a couple of other points for me. One is that I don?t think you can always assume and equation between performance and play. The performance that these youths engaged in was very tightly controlled and rehearsed, led by adults who bridged the two worlds. The youth did not really ?play? in any sense other than that they performed. Therefore to me the thread that Lobman follows from early childhood play through adult performance breaks in the middle for me. Lobman touches on this discontinuity on page 221in the final paragraphs before the next section, but she doesn?t really fix it and I don?t think she can. To me, this means that a different theoretical basis (not play as a developmental activity available to children through adulthood)is needed. The other point that I felt begged for attention was the way the paper mentioned but avoided expanding on some stark realities. A group of minority kids, Black and Latino, are bused into Manhattan. The race of the group leaders is not given; one at least might be Black, but it is not clarified. They have what may be their first experiences with getting past Bank security and into express elevators. They do their performances for a group of White office workers who are undoubtedly on paid time and under orders to cooperate, even to being told to ?volunteer.? In between performances, the youth are given small group lessons about credit and debit cards. No doubt this is a valuable lesson. However, what becomes of the information that youth provide that credit cards are used to buy food, pay hospital bills, and fix cars ? all desperation purchases, borrowing money to cover things necessary to keep life going? It just floats past without comment. So my problem with the article is that is brings highly developed analytic skills and months of investment of reasearch time to studying a situation but that it looks at it askew ? it?s like taking a photo of a crowd in motion and choosing to talk about the different brands of sneakers the people are wearing. The phrase ?white blind spot? keeps coming into my mind, when I think about what the author chooses to comment on and what to look away from. This is obviously a huge, well-run program with a big budget.Is it part of a social movement? I would say that not only is it not part of a social movement, it?s actually part of the problem.Think what that money could do if it was spent in the public school system itself, instead of a non-profit that draws tax deduction donations from businesses. Really well-written, though. Very publishable. Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com Berkeley, CA 9470 Phone VN 0168 4628562 Blog US/ Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com skype: helena.worthen1 > On Oct 12, 2017, at 8:13 AM, mike cole wrote: > > Hi Helena! > > Can you also come to Colin's assistance in discussing the paper about the > All-Stars that is the article de jeur? Andy raised the question of whether > its worthwhile to think about whether such efforts constitute social > movements. But I am interested in the question. > > When I do a project like the 5thDimension, and what starts out as just > another design experiment turns into a study of sustainability because it > "catches on", I do not think of myself as studying social movements. But > when an organization has a budget of 10 million dollars a year, and > operates on such a large, institutionalized scale, and keeps pushing (say) > for social justice by organizing resistance to forced removal from housing, > it seems a whole lot like a social movement to me. > > "What," to quote our friend, Eugene, "do you think?" > > mike > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Helena Worthen > wrote: > >> Yes, I will certainly come to Colin?s assistance!! This is a wonderful, >> small conference where students from PhD programs in various countries >> (mostly Europe and the US, and the presentations are in English) come to >> bring research that I?ve found fascinating both for theoretical orientation >> and sheer fresh content. Also presenting are mentors and professors of the >> students and some people like myself and Joe who come unattached, just to >> learn. Colin organizes enough pub and restaurant activities to encourage >> plenty of side conversations. >> >> We are seriously thinking of coming again this spring, despite being in >> Viet Nam right now. Manchester is an endlessly interesting city with >> manageable museums, especially for labor educators. Manchester Metropolitan >> is a short bus ride away from City Center but also near some low-cost >> hotels. >> >> H >> >> Helena Worthen >> helenaworthen@gmail.com >> Berkeley, CA 9470 Phone VN 0168 4628562 >> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >> skype: helena.worthen1 >> >> From ablunden@mira.net Thu Oct 12 01:53:22 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 19:53:22 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Does the All-Stars article document a social movement? In-Reply-To: References: <1507737439586.15380@mmu.ac.uk> <1507744091062.2815@mmu.ac.uk> <1507745635518.14658@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Helena, the assessment of the All Stars Project Inc. as a "social movement" is nothing to do with what takes place between the kids who are recruited into the program and the adult organisers. It is to do with the process described on pp. 221-222 in which group of good citizens around the US and in other countries pick up the All Stars franchise, or emulate it under a different name and do what they take to be good work in helping poor kids. What makes it relevant from a social movement point of view is this *proliferation* and emulation, with people freely associating themselves with the project by their own free will to join with its objective, rather than for reward. Apparently this process has been rolling on for 36 years. Generally speaking I think the question of whether this is or is not a social movement is a useless question; it is the dynamic of spreading from an isolated solution to a social problem, proliferating through others freely participating towards the project's object and eventually either dying out or becoming an institution which makes the "social movement" lens useful. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 12/10/2017 7:05 PM, Helena Worthen wrote: > Hello, > > Sorry to be so late to the conversation. I would not characterize the All Stars activity described in the Lobman paper as part of a social movement. > > I will accept that by bringing a group of disadvanged minority youth to the offices of a bank in Manhattan and having them engage a group of bank employees in some theater games, both groups can learn something. I can also see that because the rules of the theater games create a ?stage? for a performance that would never happen under the rules of the bank office culture, participants on both sides get a glimpse of 1) how much behavior is governed by the unspoken rules and 2) the reality that those rules can be temporarily suspended or changed. This lesson my be transferrable to a social movement context - for example, Occupy changed the rules about whether you could create andmove into a tent city in a small public park not far from where that bank may have been located. > > But I don?t think that?s what the article about. If this activity is part of a social movement, what social movement are we talking about? The civil rights movement? There?s nothing in here about the collective power of the minority youth to change the balance of power that keeps them poor. > > The paper raises a couple of other points for me. One is that I don?t think you can always assume and equation between performance and play. The performance that these youths engaged in was very tightly controlled and rehearsed, led by adults who bridged the two worlds. The youth did not really ?play? in any sense other than that they performed. Therefore to me the thread that Lobman follows from early childhood play through adult performance breaks in the middle for me. Lobman touches on this discontinuity on page 221in the final paragraphs before the next section, but she doesn?t really fix it and I don?t think she can. To me, this means that a different theoretical basis (not play as a developmental activity available to children through adulthood)is needed. > > The other point that I felt begged for attention was the way the paper mentioned but avoided expanding on some stark realities. A group of minority kids, Black and Latino, are bused into Manhattan. The race of the group leaders is not given; one at least might be Black, but it is not clarified. They have what may be their first experiences with getting past Bank security and into express elevators. They do their performances for a group of White office workers who are undoubtedly on paid time and under orders to cooperate, even to being told to ?volunteer.? In between performances, the youth are given small group lessons about credit and debit cards. > > No doubt this is a valuable lesson. However, what becomes of the information that youth provide that credit cards are used to buy food, pay hospital bills, and fix cars ? all desperation purchases, borrowing money to cover things necessary to keep life going? It just floats past without comment. > > So my problem with the article is that is brings highly developed analytic skills and months of investment of reasearch time to studying a situation but that it looks at it askew ? it?s like taking a photo of a crowd in motion and choosing to talk about the different brands of sneakers the people are wearing. The phrase ?white blind spot? keeps coming into my mind, when I think about what the author chooses to comment on and what to look away from. > > This is obviously a huge, well-run program with a big budget.Is it part of a social movement? I would say that not only is it not part of a social movement, it?s actually part of the problem.Think what that money could do if it was spent in the public school system itself, instead of a non-profit that draws tax deduction donations from businesses. > > Really well-written, though. Very publishable. > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > Berkeley, CA 9470 Phone VN 0168 4628562 > Blog US/ Viet Nam: > helenaworthen.wordpress.com > skype: helena.worthen1 > > > > > > >> On Oct 12, 2017, at 8:13 AM, mike cole wrote: >> >> Hi Helena! >> >> Can you also come to Colin's assistance in discussing the paper about the >> All-Stars that is the article de jeur? Andy raised the question of whether >> its worthwhile to think about whether such efforts constitute social >> movements. But I am interested in the question. >> >> When I do a project like the 5thDimension, and what starts out as just >> another design experiment turns into a study of sustainability because it >> "catches on", I do not think of myself as studying social movements. But >> when an organization has a budget of 10 million dollars a year, and >> operates on such a large, institutionalized scale, and keeps pushing (say) >> for social justice by organizing resistance to forced removal from housing, >> it seems a whole lot like a social movement to me. >> >> "What," to quote our friend, Eugene, "do you think?" >> >> mike >> >> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Helena Worthen >> wrote: >> >>> Yes, I will certainly come to Colin?s assistance!! This is a wonderful, >>> small conference where students from PhD programs in various countries >>> (mostly Europe and the US, and the presentations are in English) come to >>> bring research that I?ve found fascinating both for theoretical orientation >>> and sheer fresh content. Also presenting are mentors and professors of the >>> students and some people like myself and Joe who come unattached, just to >>> learn. Colin organizes enough pub and restaurant activities to encourage >>> plenty of side conversations. >>> >>> We are seriously thinking of coming again this spring, despite being in >>> Viet Nam right now. Manchester is an endlessly interesting city with >>> manageable museums, especially for labor educators. Manchester Metropolitan >>> is a short bus ride away from City Center but also near some low-cost >>> hotels. >>> >>> H >>> >>> Helena Worthen >>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>> Berkeley, CA 9470 Phone VN 0168 4628562 >>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>> >>> > > > From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Thu Oct 12 02:40:06 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 09:40:06 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate In-Reply-To: References: <1507462271698.29592@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F93888181D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX05.osuad.osu.edu> <1507583473996.60088@iped.uio.no>, , Message-ID: <1507801208304.22328@iped.uio.no> Analisa, really welcome reflection on what new sense a xmca-like server can afford to the notion 'to publish'. And yes, I totally agree that xmca then has a publishing role, just not the same as the one you get through scientific peer-review?which is not to say that there are not peers sanctioning our words here, but affiliation, membership, credentials, here all that changes so what it means to be a 'peer' also is different. It's a whole other thing all together, and so while the type of knowledge you get may not be labelled 'scientific', there may be one label with exchange value that we could find for calling that we get out of a place like this. Interesting reflections on copyright and value. Wide distribution is a value, but it may be that 'free' distribution may be a value if your aim is not profit, for sure. There is a contradiction there between having to make profit and wanting to reach as many as possible and as equally ... As to your question whether sharing a whole work, like Mike's book, as a PDF for scholarly discussion here, would be licit. I hope others with more experience may comment, I can only share with you how I am approaching the question so far, though I will myself further research this with a publisher like T&F: I would say that yes, what you suggest would be okey in the same way that sharing part of a course pensum with students is okey. The mission of xmca is to engage and support scholarly discussion and collaboration, not to make copyrighted work available for as many as possible (which may be said to be what the publishers against Research Gate are fighting). Now, Jen V. yesterday requested a couple of articles; she received them in private mail, from scholar to scholar. Why could not we just have shared them with the whole list? Well, I guess I should not be supportive as moderator if we were to begin sharing work without that work being thematized or somohow framed here as being part of a scholarly discussion/enterprise. So I was happy it was sent out privately, but I would have been quite happy as well if there had begun to be a discussion around the issues and then sharing the pdfs with the list had become relevant. In your particular example, having access to the author I would always ask the author first. It is not the first time I have not shared work because, upon asking, the author did not respond or responded in the negative. Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: 11 October 2017 00:16 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate Mike and Alfredo and beautiful readers and experienced thinkers, Respectfully, I am gently pushing back that indeed this forum is a publishing model (of many possible models), because we are indeed making our writing public (which by the way has a similar word stem) by writing the posts we do to XMCA. It is just that it is not the identical to the publishing model of Print, and so, we are essentially using an old word in a new way, but I would almost say its use is executed with a more faithful definition of the word "publish," as it is bypassing the process of the printing press with ink made from carbon and paper made from wood pulp, and its subsequent physical distribution through shipping to the reader and so on, which I imagine makes the rocks and trees happy, pixels being what they are. I suggest this means we reacquaint ourselves to the true meaning of the word, and extricate ourselves as having a limited meaning of "publish" with print and paper, and try an association with The Act of making our words known publicly, even as we are our own editors to one another. For the sake of this argument: didn't Martin Luther publish his theses when he nailed them to the door of All Saints Church in Wittenberg (on Oct 31 1517... hey that means the 500th anniversary of this event is in a few weeks, by golly)? This is not to note the content of the theses, but the act itself? According to Wikipedia, that well-published sage declares: "The Latin Theses were printed in several locations in Germany in 1517. In January 1518 friends of Luther translated the Ninety-five Theses from Latin into German.Within two weeks, copies of the theses had spread throughout Germany; within two months, they had spread throughout Europe." Today this post will travel much faster than Martin Luther's Theses and to a larger world than his, but I feel he and I make the same gesture, we perform an act of speech, although in the form of text, publicly, with the intentions to better develop minds in our human society. Hope that that isn't too grandiose a statement to compare myself to Luther, but I think in some ways anyone who seeks interaction with others through writing, places us all on equal standing, and with the same potential of changing hearts and minds, as Luther did in his time. Really it depends upon the courage one has to speak one's mind and face the consequences of doing so, and not so much on whether a print publisher will object to lost revenue. Is that fair to say? The pesky part with which we have to contend in this Internet age, are the middlemen, such as gatekeepers and lawyers. We also must consider what is intellectual property, which, to me, then funnels to the questions of copyright and fair use. So that's the thread of my thinking on this. I'm curious how these things were dealt with at the time of the invention of the Printing Press and how it was that attribution was "policed." Maybe someone has something historical to say about that? I did also look at the wiki entry for Copyright - Fair Use and Fair Dealing and found there this text (here --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Fair_use_and_fair_dealing ) "The statute does not clearly define fair use, but instead gives four non-exclusive factors to consider in a fair use analysis. Those factors are: 1. the purpose and character of one's use 2. the nature of the copyrighted work 3. what amount and proportion of the whole work was taken, and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." It seems to me if there is a way to justify, as has been shown in the music industry, that an artist or author can increase the "market for or value of the copyrighted work" by having a wider distribution, that will take care of #4. What academic does not want wider distribution? In my estimation, it is up to the print journals to figure out a way to innovate alongside or despite the distribution of digital media, instead of setting litigation fires against the distribution of journal articles as digital media. It seems that is what has happened in academic publishing. This putting the genie back in the bottle is foolish. The DMCA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act) is one of many attempts to return the genie to the bottle, if it can be shown that "the manufacture, importation, or distribution of devices whose intended use, or only significant commercial use, is to bypass an access or copy control put in place by a copyright owner." If only the inventors of the internet could be shown to have intentions to bypass access of copy controls. Or inventors of magnetic tape for that matter. It just seems silly. So my question to Mike was asked with this in mind. Can it be said that as scholars sharing ideas in peer review, which fulfills factors #1 and #2 above for fair use, could indeed override factors #3 and #4 for fair use? For merits of argument only and respectfully asked, can't it be that posting a PDF of Cultural Psychology, by Mike Cole on the XMCA list, in its entirety, were it done in context of scholarly reference and for examination of its contents among a society of scholars, be enough of a safe threshold for fair use? Would it make Belknap Press (who published the print version of the book) or Mike be compelled sue the person who posted it? I don't know what that means, and it seems a grey area people don't really want to figure out. In that same thinking, is the threshold less so, the same, or more so for a published article? Or how about a draft of a paper? We are witnesses to the development of the Internet, which in the end bypasses the controls on copyright, and because it does, it seems we must then rely upon the factors of fair use. So I would think that posting the book in PDF online would be acceptable, as long as, if I were to post it, I was not saying I wrote the book, or that I wasn't selling the book to receive monetary gain, or that I wasn't intending to constrict the market in order to denigrate the book's value. Right? Thinking out loud, but I hope not too loudly. Kind regards, Annalisa From helenaworthen@gmail.com Thu Oct 12 03:17:36 2017 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 17:17:36 +0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Does the All-Stars article document a social movement? In-Reply-To: References: <1507737439586.15380@mmu.ac.uk> <1507744091062.2815@mmu.ac.uk> <1507745635518.14658@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <2D722419-3DCB-4E9A-BC5A-43BA50AA1D97@gmail.com> Ok, I see I was answering the wrong question. Apologies for not having remembered enough of the previous relevant thread to see why people were talking about social movements. Shall I re-think this with a different question in mind? Sitting in my university housing room on a very rainy afternoon in Ho Chi Minh City, after teaching a class in bargaining to students enrolled in the Faculty of Environment and Labor Protections. These are undergraduates who will have jobs inspecting and remediating environmental and workplace hazards. Where else do you find an undergrad major like that? H Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com Berkeley, CA 9470 Phone VN 0168 4628562 Blog US/ Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com skype: helena.worthen1 > On Oct 12, 2017, at 3:53 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > Helena, the assessment of the All Stars Project Inc. as a > "social movement" is nothing to do with what takes place > between the kids who are recruited into the program and the > adult organisers. It is to do with the process described on > pp. 221-222 in which group of good citizens around the US > and in other countries pick up the All Stars franchise, or > emulate it under a different name and do what they take to > be good work in helping poor kids. What makes it relevant > from a social movement point of view is this *proliferation* > and emulation, with people freely associating themselves > with the project by their own free will to join with its > objective, rather than for reward. Apparently this process > has been rolling on for 36 years. > > Generally speaking I think the question of whether this is > or is not a social movement is a useless question; it is the > dynamic of spreading from an isolated solution to a social > problem, proliferating through others freely participating > towards the project's object and eventually either dying out > or becoming an institution which makes the "social movement" > lens useful. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 12/10/2017 7:05 PM, Helena Worthen wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Sorry to be so late to the conversation. I would not characterize the All Stars activity described in the Lobman paper as part of a social movement. >> >> I will accept that by bringing a group of disadvanged minority youth to the offices of a bank in Manhattan and having them engage a group of bank employees in some theater games, both groups can learn something. I can also see that because the rules of the theater games create a ?stage? for a performance that would never happen under the rules of the bank office culture, participants on both sides get a glimpse of 1) how much behavior is governed by the unspoken rules and 2) the reality that those rules can be temporarily suspended or changed. This lesson my be transferrable to a social movement context - for example, Occupy changed the rules about whether you could create andmove into a tent city in a small public park not far from where that bank may have been located. >> >> But I don?t think that?s what the article about. If this activity is part of a social movement, what social movement are we talking about? The civil rights movement? There?s nothing in here about the collective power of the minority youth to change the balance of power that keeps them poor. >> >> The paper raises a couple of other points for me. One is that I don?t think you can always assume and equation between performance and play. The performance that these youths engaged in was very tightly controlled and rehearsed, led by adults who bridged the two worlds. The youth did not really ?play? in any sense other than that they performed. Therefore to me the thread that Lobman follows from early childhood play through adult performance breaks in the middle for me. Lobman touches on this discontinuity on page 221in the final paragraphs before the next section, but she doesn?t really fix it and I don?t think she can. To me, this means that a different theoretical basis (not play as a developmental activity available to children through adulthood)is needed. >> >> The other point that I felt begged for attention was the way the paper mentioned but avoided expanding on some stark realities. A group of minority kids, Black and Latino, are bused into Manhattan. The race of the group leaders is not given; one at least might be Black, but it is not clarified. They have what may be their first experiences with getting past Bank security and into express elevators. They do their performances for a group of White office workers who are undoubtedly on paid time and under orders to cooperate, even to being told to ?volunteer.? In between performances, the youth are given small group lessons about credit and debit cards. >> >> No doubt this is a valuable lesson. However, what becomes of the information that youth provide that credit cards are used to buy food, pay hospital bills, and fix cars ? all desperation purchases, borrowing money to cover things necessary to keep life going? It just floats past without comment. >> >> So my problem with the article is that is brings highly developed analytic skills and months of investment of reasearch time to studying a situation but that it looks at it askew ? it?s like taking a photo of a crowd in motion and choosing to talk about the different brands of sneakers the people are wearing. The phrase ?white blind spot? keeps coming into my mind, when I think about what the author chooses to comment on and what to look away from. >> >> This is obviously a huge, well-run program with a big budget.Is it part of a social movement? I would say that not only is it not part of a social movement, it?s actually part of the problem.Think what that money could do if it was spent in the public school system itself, instead of a non-profit that draws tax deduction donations from businesses. >> >> Really well-written, though. Very publishable. >> >> Helena Worthen >> helenaworthen@gmail.com >> Berkeley, CA 9470 Phone VN 0168 4628562 >> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >> skype: helena.worthen1 >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Oct 12, 2017, at 8:13 AM, mike cole wrote: >>> >>> Hi Helena! >>> >>> Can you also come to Colin's assistance in discussing the paper about the >>> All-Stars that is the article de jeur? Andy raised the question of whether >>> its worthwhile to think about whether such efforts constitute social >>> movements. But I am interested in the question. >>> >>> When I do a project like the 5thDimension, and what starts out as just >>> another design experiment turns into a study of sustainability because it >>> "catches on", I do not think of myself as studying social movements. But >>> when an organization has a budget of 10 million dollars a year, and >>> operates on such a large, institutionalized scale, and keeps pushing (say) >>> for social justice by organizing resistance to forced removal from housing, >>> it seems a whole lot like a social movement to me. >>> >>> "What," to quote our friend, Eugene, "do you think?" >>> >>> mike >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Helena Worthen >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Yes, I will certainly come to Colin?s assistance!! This is a wonderful, >>>> small conference where students from PhD programs in various countries >>>> (mostly Europe and the US, and the presentations are in English) come to >>>> bring research that I?ve found fascinating both for theoretical orientation >>>> and sheer fresh content. Also presenting are mentors and professors of the >>>> students and some people like myself and Joe who come unattached, just to >>>> learn. Colin organizes enough pub and restaurant activities to encourage >>>> plenty of side conversations. >>>> >>>> We are seriously thinking of coming again this spring, despite being in >>>> Viet Nam right now. Manchester is an endlessly interesting city with >>>> manageable museums, especially for labor educators. Manchester Metropolitan >>>> is a short bus ride away from City Center but also near some low-cost >>>> hotels. >>>> >>>> H >>>> >>>> Helena Worthen >>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>> Berkeley, CA 9470 Phone VN 0168 4628562 >>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>> >>>> >> >> >> > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Thu Oct 12 04:03:22 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 20:03:22 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Does the All-Stars article document a social movement? In-Reply-To: <2D722419-3DCB-4E9A-BC5A-43BA50AA1D97@gmail.com> References: <1507737439586.15380@mmu.ac.uk> <1507744091062.2815@mmu.ac.uk> <1507745635518.14658@iped.uio.no> <2D722419-3DCB-4E9A-BC5A-43BA50AA1D97@gmail.com> Message-ID: I thought Helena's contribution was completely a propos, Andy. (I also think that your own position makes no sense. On the one hand, the whole question of what social movement is can be dismissed as "useless". On the other hand, the moment when a social movement stops moving is a "useful lens".) Helena was able to articulate exactly what I felt about the article (including her remark about the artistry of the prose and the necessity of publishing it). She was actually addressing TWO of the five questions that Mike raised in his comments on the plenary on social movements in Quebec City: a) Studying a social movement is not at all the same thing as advancing it, and in fact in many instances the two are quite antithetical; perhaps in a majority the two ends are simply indifferent to each other. In Yrjo Engestrom's presentation, what usually transpired was that the researched were interested in "growing" or "de-growing" the movement while the researchers simply wanted to study it as it was; in this instance, the roles are pretty much reversed: Carrie is interested in advancing a movement towards social justice, but the movement itself seems almost indifferent to those goals. b) Not all social movements are progressive, and in many cases the unprogressive, institutionalized, petering-out ones are the ones that we most need to study and to understand. Actually, Yrjo's plenary had as a subordinate goal understanding why the "Occupy" movement disappeared so rapidly after the election of Trump. Helena--here in Korea, our own trade union movement, the Jeongyojo, is busy studying the curriculum reforms underway in the Scandinavian countries (Norway, Finland, Lithuania). I have just trudged through several hundred pages of this stuff. So many programmes for instilling the spirit of "entrepreneurs" in the children, so many visits by local business leaders, and not one by leaders of the union movement. So much on how to be a consumer, how to open a bank account, how to manage a credit card. Not one word on how to collectively bargain, how to read a contract, how to discuss conditions with your workmates. This kind of curriculum is also part of the problem, not part of the solution. David Kellogg On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Helena Worthen wrote: > Ok, I see I was answering the wrong question. Apologies for not having > remembered enough of the previous relevant thread to see why people were > talking about social movements. Shall I re-think this with a different > question in mind? > > Sitting in my university housing room on a very rainy afternoon in Ho Chi > Minh City, after teaching a class in bargaining to students enrolled in the > Faculty of Environment and Labor Protections. These are undergraduates > who will have jobs inspecting and remediating environmental and workplace > hazards. Where else do you find an undergrad major like that? > > H > > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > Berkeley, CA 9470 Phone VN 0168 4628562 > Blog US/ Viet Nam: > helenaworthen.wordpress.com > skype: helena.worthen1 > > > > > > > > On Oct 12, 2017, at 3:53 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > > Helena, the assessment of the All Stars Project Inc. as a > > "social movement" is nothing to do with what takes place > > between the kids who are recruited into the program and the > > adult organisers. It is to do with the process described on > > pp. 221-222 in which group of good citizens around the US > > and in other countries pick up the All Stars franchise, or > > emulate it under a different name and do what they take to > > be good work in helping poor kids. What makes it relevant > > from a social movement point of view is this *proliferation* > > and emulation, with people freely associating themselves > > with the project by their own free will to join with its > > objective, rather than for reward. Apparently this process > > has been rolling on for 36 years. > > > > Generally speaking I think the question of whether this is > > or is not a social movement is a useless question; it is the > > dynamic of spreading from an isolated solution to a social > > problem, proliferating through others freely participating > > towards the project's object and eventually either dying out > > or becoming an institution which makes the "social movement" > > lens useful. > > > > Andy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 12/10/2017 7:05 PM, Helena Worthen wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> Sorry to be so late to the conversation. I would not characterize the > All Stars activity described in the Lobman paper as part of a social > movement. > >> > >> I will accept that by bringing a group of disadvanged minority youth to > the offices of a bank in Manhattan and having them engage a group of bank > employees in some theater games, both groups can learn something. I can > also see that because the rules of the theater games create a ?stage? for a > performance that would never happen under the rules of the bank office > culture, participants on both sides get a glimpse of 1) how much behavior > is governed by the unspoken rules and 2) the reality that those rules can > be temporarily suspended or changed. This lesson my be transferrable to a > social movement context - for example, Occupy changed the rules about > whether you could create andmove into a tent city in a small public park > not far from where that bank may have been located. > >> > >> But I don?t think that?s what the article about. If this activity is > part of a social movement, what social movement are we talking about? The > civil rights movement? There?s nothing in here about the collective power > of the minority youth to change the balance of power that keeps them poor. > >> > >> The paper raises a couple of other points for me. One is that I don?t > think you can always assume and equation between performance and play. The > performance that these youths engaged in was very tightly controlled and > rehearsed, led by adults who bridged the two worlds. The youth did not > really ?play? in any sense other than that they performed. Therefore to me > the thread that Lobman follows from early childhood play through adult > performance breaks in the middle for me. Lobman touches on this > discontinuity on page 221in the final paragraphs before the next section, > but she doesn?t really fix it and I don?t think she can. To me, this means > that a different theoretical basis (not play as a developmental activity > available to children through adulthood)is needed. > >> > >> The other point that I felt begged for attention was the way the paper > mentioned but avoided expanding on some stark realities. A group of > minority kids, Black and Latino, are bused into Manhattan. The race of the > group leaders is not given; one at least might be Black, but it is not > clarified. They have what may be their first experiences with getting past > Bank security and into express elevators. They do their performances for a > group of White office workers who are undoubtedly on paid time and under > orders to cooperate, even to being told to ?volunteer.? In between > performances, the youth are given small group lessons about credit and > debit cards. > >> > >> No doubt this is a valuable lesson. However, what becomes of the > information that youth provide that credit cards are used to buy food, pay > hospital bills, and fix cars ? all desperation purchases, borrowing money > to cover things necessary to keep life going? It just floats past without > comment. > >> > >> So my problem with the article is that is brings highly developed > analytic skills and months of investment of reasearch time to studying a > situation but that it looks at it askew ? it?s like taking a photo of a > crowd in motion and choosing to talk about the different brands of sneakers > the people are wearing. The phrase ?white blind spot? keeps coming into my > mind, when I think about what the author chooses to comment on and what to > look away from. > >> > >> This is obviously a huge, well-run program with a big budget.Is it part > of a social movement? I would say that not only is it not part of a social > movement, it?s actually part of the problem.Think what that money could do > if it was spent in the public school system itself, instead of a non-profit > that draws tax deduction donations from businesses. > >> > >> Really well-written, though. Very publishable. > >> > >> Helena Worthen > >> helenaworthen@gmail.com > >> Berkeley, CA 9470 Phone VN 0168 4628562 > >> Blog US/ Viet Nam: > >> helenaworthen.wordpress.com > >> skype: helena.worthen1 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Oct 12, 2017, at 8:13 AM, mike cole wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Helena! > >>> > >>> Can you also come to Colin's assistance in discussing the paper about > the > >>> All-Stars that is the article de jeur? Andy raised the question of > whether > >>> its worthwhile to think about whether such efforts constitute social > >>> movements. But I am interested in the question. > >>> > >>> When I do a project like the 5thDimension, and what starts out as just > >>> another design experiment turns into a study of sustainability because > it > >>> "catches on", I do not think of myself as studying social movements. > But > >>> when an organization has a budget of 10 million dollars a year, and > >>> operates on such a large, institutionalized scale, and keeps pushing > (say) > >>> for social justice by organizing resistance to forced removal from > housing, > >>> it seems a whole lot like a social movement to me. > >>> > >>> "What," to quote our friend, Eugene, "do you think?" > >>> > >>> mike > >>> > >>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Helena Worthen < > helenaworthen@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Yes, I will certainly come to Colin?s assistance!! This is a > wonderful, > >>>> small conference where students from PhD programs in various countries > >>>> (mostly Europe and the US, and the presentations are in English) come > to > >>>> bring research that I?ve found fascinating both for theoretical > orientation > >>>> and sheer fresh content. Also presenting are mentors and professors > of the > >>>> students and some people like myself and Joe who come unattached, > just to > >>>> learn. Colin organizes enough pub and restaurant activities to > encourage > >>>> plenty of side conversations. > >>>> > >>>> We are seriously thinking of coming again this spring, despite being > in > >>>> Viet Nam right now. Manchester is an endlessly interesting city with > >>>> manageable museums, especially for labor educators. Manchester > Metropolitan > >>>> is a short bus ride away from City Center but also near some low-cost > >>>> hotels. > >>>> > >>>> H > >>>> > >>>> Helena Worthen > >>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com > >>>> Berkeley, CA 9470 Phone VN 0168 4628562 > >>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: > >>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com > >>>> skype: helena.worthen1 > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > From helenaworthen@gmail.com Thu Oct 12 04:18:31 2017 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 18:18:31 +0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Does the All-Stars article document a social movement? In-Reply-To: References: <1507737439586.15380@mmu.ac.uk> <1507744091062.2815@mmu.ac.uk> <1507745635518.14658@iped.uio.no> <2D722419-3DCB-4E9A-BC5A-43BA50AA1D97@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52F8DED5-9293-4762-B316-3D97B6077E05@gmail.com> David, please clarify your description of the curriculum reforms in Korea. Maybe I misunderstood? Are you saying that the union ? the Jeongyojo - is studying the curricula in the Scandinavian countries for students who are planning to get jobs as HR or union leaders (like an Industrial Relations degree in the US or Canada)? Or is this a curriculum for K-12 students? We have just been told that the VGCL, the unitary (represents everyone, no autonomous unions allowed) labor union in Viet Nam, feeling itself under pressure to reform as foreign direct investment firms (FDI) from the US, Korea, Australia, China, etc bring free market labor relations to a country that still has a socialist culture in many respects, has decided to re-boot itself in the ?customer satisfaction? mode, including providing credit cards, supermarkets, recreational facilities for its members.There is of course a debate going on inside the VGCL over this. So I am asking if it is in fact the union, the Joengyojo, that would adopt this curriculum for its members.They would not be unique. We feel very lucky to be able to teach collective bargaining at all. H Helena Worthen helenaworthen@gmail.com Berkeley, CA 9470 Phone VN 0168 4628562 Blog US/ Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com skype: helena.worthen1 > On Oct 12, 2017, at 6:03 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > I thought Helena's contribution was completely a propos, Andy. (I also > think that your own position makes no sense. On the one hand, the whole > question of what social movement is can be dismissed as "useless". On the > other hand, the moment when a social movement stops moving is a "useful > lens".) > > Helena was able to articulate exactly what I felt about the article > (including her remark about the artistry of the prose and the necessity of > publishing it). She was actually addressing TWO of the five questions that > Mike raised in his comments on the plenary on social movements in Quebec > City: > > a) Studying a social movement is not at all the same thing as advancing it, > and in fact in many instances the two are quite antithetical; perhaps in a > majority the two ends are simply indifferent to each other. In Yrjo > Engestrom's presentation, what usually transpired was that the researched > were interested in "growing" or "de-growing" the movement while the > researchers simply wanted to study it as it was; in this instance, the > roles are pretty much reversed: Carrie is interested in advancing a > movement towards social justice, but the movement itself seems almost > indifferent to those goals. > > b) Not all social movements are progressive, and in many cases the > unprogressive, institutionalized, petering-out ones are the ones that we > most need to study and to understand. Actually, Yrjo's plenary had as a > subordinate goal understanding why the "Occupy" movement disappeared so > rapidly after the election of Trump. > > Helena--here in Korea, our own trade union movement, the Jeongyojo, is busy > studying the curriculum reforms underway in the Scandinavian countries > (Norway, Finland, Lithuania). I have just trudged through several hundred > pages of this stuff. So many programmes for instilling the spirit of > "entrepreneurs" in the children, so many visits by local business leaders, > and not one by leaders of the union movement. So much on how to be a > consumer, how to open a bank account, how to manage a credit card. Not > one word on how to collectively bargain, how to read a contract, how to > discuss conditions with your workmates. This kind of curriculum is also > part of the problem, not part of the solution. > > David Kellogg > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Helena Worthen > wrote: > >> Ok, I see I was answering the wrong question. Apologies for not having >> remembered enough of the previous relevant thread to see why people were >> talking about social movements. Shall I re-think this with a different >> question in mind? >> >> Sitting in my university housing room on a very rainy afternoon in Ho Chi >> Minh City, after teaching a class in bargaining to students enrolled in the >> Faculty of Environment and Labor Protections. These are undergraduates >> who will have jobs inspecting and remediating environmental and workplace >> hazards. Where else do you find an undergrad major like that? >> >> H >> >> Helena Worthen >> helenaworthen@gmail.com >> Berkeley, CA 9470 Phone VN 0168 4628562 >> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >> skype: helena.worthen1 >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Oct 12, 2017, at 3:53 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >>> >>> Helena, the assessment of the All Stars Project Inc. as a >>> "social movement" is nothing to do with what takes place >>> between the kids who are recruited into the program and the >>> adult organisers. It is to do with the process described on >>> pp. 221-222 in which group of good citizens around the US >>> and in other countries pick up the All Stars franchise, or >>> emulate it under a different name and do what they take to >>> be good work in helping poor kids. What makes it relevant >>> from a social movement point of view is this *proliferation* >>> and emulation, with people freely associating themselves >>> with the project by their own free will to join with its >>> objective, rather than for reward. Apparently this process >>> has been rolling on for 36 years. >>> >>> Generally speaking I think the question of whether this is >>> or is not a social movement is a useless question; it is the >>> dynamic of spreading from an isolated solution to a social >>> problem, proliferating through others freely participating >>> towards the project's object and eventually either dying out >>> or becoming an institution which makes the "social movement" >>> lens useful. >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 12/10/2017 7:05 PM, Helena Worthen wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> Sorry to be so late to the conversation. I would not characterize the >> All Stars activity described in the Lobman paper as part of a social >> movement. >>>> >>>> I will accept that by bringing a group of disadvanged minority youth to >> the offices of a bank in Manhattan and having them engage a group of bank >> employees in some theater games, both groups can learn something. I can >> also see that because the rules of the theater games create a ?stage? for a >> performance that would never happen under the rules of the bank office >> culture, participants on both sides get a glimpse of 1) how much behavior >> is governed by the unspoken rules and 2) the reality that those rules can >> be temporarily suspended or changed. This lesson my be transferrable to a >> social movement context - for example, Occupy changed the rules about >> whether you could create andmove into a tent city in a small public park >> not far from where that bank may have been located. >>>> >>>> But I don?t think that?s what the article about. If this activity is >> part of a social movement, what social movement are we talking about? The >> civil rights movement? There?s nothing in here about the collective power >> of the minority youth to change the balance of power that keeps them poor. >>>> >>>> The paper raises a couple of other points for me. One is that I don?t >> think you can always assume and equation between performance and play. The >> performance that these youths engaged in was very tightly controlled and >> rehearsed, led by adults who bridged the two worlds. The youth did not >> really ?play? in any sense other than that they performed. Therefore to me >> the thread that Lobman follows from early childhood play through adult >> performance breaks in the middle for me. Lobman touches on this >> discontinuity on page 221in the final paragraphs before the next section, >> but she doesn?t really fix it and I don?t think she can. To me, this means >> that a different theoretical basis (not play as a developmental activity >> available to children through adulthood)is needed. >>>> >>>> The other point that I felt begged for attention was the way the paper >> mentioned but avoided expanding on some stark realities. A group of >> minority kids, Black and Latino, are bused into Manhattan. The race of the >> group leaders is not given; one at least might be Black, but it is not >> clarified. They have what may be their first experiences with getting past >> Bank security and into express elevators. They do their performances for a >> group of White office workers who are undoubtedly on paid time and under >> orders to cooperate, even to being told to ?volunteer.? In between >> performances, the youth are given small group lessons about credit and >> debit cards. >>>> >>>> No doubt this is a valuable lesson. However, what becomes of the >> information that youth provide that credit cards are used to buy food, pay >> hospital bills, and fix cars ? all desperation purchases, borrowing money >> to cover things necessary to keep life going? It just floats past without >> comment. >>>> >>>> So my problem with the article is that is brings highly developed >> analytic skills and months of investment of reasearch time to studying a >> situation but that it looks at it askew ? it?s like taking a photo of a >> crowd in motion and choosing to talk about the different brands of sneakers >> the people are wearing. The phrase ?white blind spot? keeps coming into my >> mind, when I think about what the author chooses to comment on and what to >> look away from. >>>> >>>> This is obviously a huge, well-run program with a big budget.Is it part >> of a social movement? I would say that not only is it not part of a social >> movement, it?s actually part of the problem.Think what that money could do >> if it was spent in the public school system itself, instead of a non-profit >> that draws tax deduction donations from businesses. >>>> >>>> Really well-written, though. Very publishable. >>>> >>>> Helena Worthen >>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>> Berkeley, CA 9470 Phone VN 0168 4628562 >>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Oct 12, 2017, at 8:13 AM, mike cole wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Helena! >>>>> >>>>> Can you also come to Colin's assistance in discussing the paper about >> the >>>>> All-Stars that is the article de jeur? Andy raised the question of >> whether >>>>> its worthwhile to think about whether such efforts constitute social >>>>> movements. But I am interested in the question. >>>>> >>>>> When I do a project like the 5thDimension, and what starts out as just >>>>> another design experiment turns into a study of sustainability because >> it >>>>> "catches on", I do not think of myself as studying social movements. >> But >>>>> when an organization has a budget of 10 million dollars a year, and >>>>> operates on such a large, institutionalized scale, and keeps pushing >> (say) >>>>> for social justice by organizing resistance to forced removal from >> housing, >>>>> it seems a whole lot like a social movement to me. >>>>> >>>>> "What," to quote our friend, Eugene, "do you think?" >>>>> >>>>> mike >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Helena Worthen < >> helenaworthen@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Yes, I will certainly come to Colin?s assistance!! This is a >> wonderful, >>>>>> small conference where students from PhD programs in various countries >>>>>> (mostly Europe and the US, and the presentations are in English) come >> to >>>>>> bring research that I?ve found fascinating both for theoretical >> orientation >>>>>> and sheer fresh content. Also presenting are mentors and professors >> of the >>>>>> students and some people like myself and Joe who come unattached, >> just to >>>>>> learn. Colin organizes enough pub and restaurant activities to >> encourage >>>>>> plenty of side conversations. >>>>>> >>>>>> We are seriously thinking of coming again this spring, despite being >> in >>>>>> Viet Nam right now. Manchester is an endlessly interesting city with >>>>>> manageable museums, especially for labor educators. Manchester >> Metropolitan >>>>>> is a short bus ride away from City Center but also near some low-cost >>>>>> hotels. >>>>>> >>>>>> H >>>>>> >>>>>> Helena Worthen >>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com >>>>>> Berkeley, CA 9470 Phone VN 0168 4628562 >>>>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: >>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com >>>>>> skype: helena.worthen1 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> From dkellogg60@gmail.com Thu Oct 12 04:42:12 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 20:42:12 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Does the All-Stars article document a social movement? In-Reply-To: <52F8DED5-9293-4762-B316-3D97B6077E05@gmail.com> References: <1507737439586.15380@mmu.ac.uk> <1507744091062.2815@mmu.ac.uk> <1507745635518.14658@iped.uio.no> <2D722419-3DCB-4E9A-BC5A-43BA50AA1D97@gmail.com> <52F8DED5-9293-4762-B316-3D97B6077E05@gmail.com> Message-ID: Not at all, Helena. The Jeongyojo is a mass union of teachers founded in 1987 during the struggle to overthrow the dictatorship. They don't have the power to fix state curricula, and in fact they were only legalized last year. The curriculum is all done by the government, which is either run by swaggering neo-militarists (last year) or by cringing liberals (this year). Both groups are in thrall to Washington; neither has anything much to say about education. A number of districts (seven out of thirteen) have selected superintendants of education who are sympathetic to the union, and the union is sometimes called upon to advise or to at least opine on curricular reforms. Finland is one of the very few countries that the Korean public actually looks up to, for reasons I can't understand (their education system is utterly unlike ours, much smaller and geographically more regionalized, all their textbooks are privately produced). Something to do with their PISA scores, I suppose. In Korea, the major corporations can and do introduce secrecy clauses. This is something like the trick Harvey Weinstein used to cover up three decades of sexual harassment: you have to sign an agreement to never discuss conditions with anybody or you can't have a job at Samsung. In the USA this is not legal; it blatantly violates the New Deal era Wagner Act, and Obama signed a directive in 2014 that stripped violators of federal contracts (Obama was mostly interested in enforcing gender parity). Now, wouldn't THAT be a good topic for social studies class? David Kellogg On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Helena Worthen wrote: > David, please clarify your description of the curriculum reforms in Korea. > Maybe I misunderstood? Are you saying that the union ? the Jeongyojo - is > studying the curricula in the Scandinavian countries for students who are > planning to get jobs as HR or union leaders (like an Industrial Relations > degree in the US or Canada)? Or is this a curriculum for K-12 students? > > We have just been told that the VGCL, the unitary (represents everyone, no > autonomous unions allowed) labor union in Viet Nam, feeling itself under > pressure to reform as foreign direct investment firms (FDI) from the US, > Korea, Australia, China, etc bring free market labor relations to a country > that still has a socialist culture in many respects, has decided to re-boot > itself in the ?customer satisfaction? mode, including providing credit > cards, supermarkets, recreational facilities for its members.There is of > course a debate going on inside the VGCL over this. > > So I am asking if it is in fact the union, the Joengyojo, that would adopt > this curriculum for its members.They would not be unique. > > We feel very lucky to be able to teach collective bargaining at all. > > H > Helena Worthen > helenaworthen@gmail.com > Berkeley, CA 9470 Phone VN 0168 4628562 > Blog US/ Viet Nam: > helenaworthen.wordpress.com > skype: helena.worthen1 > > > > > > > > On Oct 12, 2017, at 6:03 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > I thought Helena's contribution was completely a propos, Andy. (I also > > think that your own position makes no sense. On the one hand, the whole > > question of what social movement is can be dismissed as "useless". On the > > other hand, the moment when a social movement stops moving is a "useful > > lens".) > > > > Helena was able to articulate exactly what I felt about the article > > (including her remark about the artistry of the prose and the necessity > of > > publishing it). She was actually addressing TWO of the five questions > that > > Mike raised in his comments on the plenary on social movements in Quebec > > City: > > > > a) Studying a social movement is not at all the same thing as advancing > it, > > and in fact in many instances the two are quite antithetical; perhaps in > a > > majority the two ends are simply indifferent to each other. In Yrjo > > Engestrom's presentation, what usually transpired was that the researched > > were interested in "growing" or "de-growing" the movement while the > > researchers simply wanted to study it as it was; in this instance, the > > roles are pretty much reversed: Carrie is interested in advancing a > > movement towards social justice, but the movement itself seems almost > > indifferent to those goals. > > > > b) Not all social movements are progressive, and in many cases the > > unprogressive, institutionalized, petering-out ones are the ones that we > > most need to study and to understand. Actually, Yrjo's plenary had as a > > subordinate goal understanding why the "Occupy" movement disappeared so > > rapidly after the election of Trump. > > > > Helena--here in Korea, our own trade union movement, the Jeongyojo, is > busy > > studying the curriculum reforms underway in the Scandinavian countries > > (Norway, Finland, Lithuania). I have just trudged through several hundred > > pages of this stuff. So many programmes for instilling the spirit of > > "entrepreneurs" in the children, so many visits by local business > leaders, > > and not one by leaders of the union movement. So much on how to be a > > consumer, how to open a bank account, how to manage a credit card. Not > > one word on how to collectively bargain, how to read a contract, how to > > discuss conditions with your workmates. This kind of curriculum is also > > part of the problem, not part of the solution. > > > > David Kellogg > > > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Helena Worthen > > > wrote: > > > >> Ok, I see I was answering the wrong question. Apologies for not having > >> remembered enough of the previous relevant thread to see why people were > >> talking about social movements. Shall I re-think this with a different > >> question in mind? > >> > >> Sitting in my university housing room on a very rainy afternoon in Ho > Chi > >> Minh City, after teaching a class in bargaining to students enrolled in > the > >> Faculty of Environment and Labor Protections. These are undergraduates > >> who will have jobs inspecting and remediating environmental and > workplace > >> hazards. Where else do you find an undergrad major like that? > >> > >> H > >> > >> Helena Worthen > >> helenaworthen@gmail.com > >> Berkeley, CA 9470 Phone VN 0168 4628562 > >> Blog US/ Viet Nam: > >> helenaworthen.wordpress.com > >> skype: helena.worthen1 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Oct 12, 2017, at 3:53 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > >>> > >>> Helena, the assessment of the All Stars Project Inc. as a > >>> "social movement" is nothing to do with what takes place > >>> between the kids who are recruited into the program and the > >>> adult organisers. It is to do with the process described on > >>> pp. 221-222 in which group of good citizens around the US > >>> and in other countries pick up the All Stars franchise, or > >>> emulate it under a different name and do what they take to > >>> be good work in helping poor kids. What makes it relevant > >>> from a social movement point of view is this *proliferation* > >>> and emulation, with people freely associating themselves > >>> with the project by their own free will to join with its > >>> objective, rather than for reward. Apparently this process > >>> has been rolling on for 36 years. > >>> > >>> Generally speaking I think the question of whether this is > >>> or is not a social movement is a useless question; it is the > >>> dynamic of spreading from an isolated solution to a social > >>> problem, proliferating through others freely participating > >>> towards the project's object and eventually either dying out > >>> or becoming an institution which makes the "social movement" > >>> lens useful. > >>> > >>> Andy > >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> Andy Blunden > >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > >>> On 12/10/2017 7:05 PM, Helena Worthen wrote: > >>>> Hello, > >>>> > >>>> Sorry to be so late to the conversation. I would not characterize the > >> All Stars activity described in the Lobman paper as part of a social > >> movement. > >>>> > >>>> I will accept that by bringing a group of disadvanged minority youth > to > >> the offices of a bank in Manhattan and having them engage a group of > bank > >> employees in some theater games, both groups can learn something. I can > >> also see that because the rules of the theater games create a ?stage? > for a > >> performance that would never happen under the rules of the bank office > >> culture, participants on both sides get a glimpse of 1) how much > behavior > >> is governed by the unspoken rules and 2) the reality that those rules > can > >> be temporarily suspended or changed. This lesson my be transferrable to > a > >> social movement context - for example, Occupy changed the rules about > >> whether you could create andmove into a tent city in a small public park > >> not far from where that bank may have been located. > >>>> > >>>> But I don?t think that?s what the article about. If this activity is > >> part of a social movement, what social movement are we talking about? > The > >> civil rights movement? There?s nothing in here about the collective > power > >> of the minority youth to change the balance of power that keeps them > poor. > >>>> > >>>> The paper raises a couple of other points for me. One is that I don?t > >> think you can always assume and equation between performance and play. > The > >> performance that these youths engaged in was very tightly controlled and > >> rehearsed, led by adults who bridged the two worlds. The youth did not > >> really ?play? in any sense other than that they performed. Therefore to > me > >> the thread that Lobman follows from early childhood play through adult > >> performance breaks in the middle for me. Lobman touches on this > >> discontinuity on page 221in the final paragraphs before the next > section, > >> but she doesn?t really fix it and I don?t think she can. To me, this > means > >> that a different theoretical basis (not play as a developmental activity > >> available to children through adulthood)is needed. > >>>> > >>>> The other point that I felt begged for attention was the way the paper > >> mentioned but avoided expanding on some stark realities. A group of > >> minority kids, Black and Latino, are bused into Manhattan. The race of > the > >> group leaders is not given; one at least might be Black, but it is not > >> clarified. They have what may be their first experiences with getting > past > >> Bank security and into express elevators. They do their performances > for a > >> group of White office workers who are undoubtedly on paid time and under > >> orders to cooperate, even to being told to ?volunteer.? In between > >> performances, the youth are given small group lessons about credit and > >> debit cards. > >>>> > >>>> No doubt this is a valuable lesson. However, what becomes of the > >> information that youth provide that credit cards are used to buy food, > pay > >> hospital bills, and fix cars ? all desperation purchases, borrowing > money > >> to cover things necessary to keep life going? It just floats past > without > >> comment. > >>>> > >>>> So my problem with the article is that is brings highly developed > >> analytic skills and months of investment of reasearch time to studying a > >> situation but that it looks at it askew ? it?s like taking a photo of a > >> crowd in motion and choosing to talk about the different brands of > sneakers > >> the people are wearing. The phrase ?white blind spot? keeps coming into > my > >> mind, when I think about what the author chooses to comment on and what > to > >> look away from. > >>>> > >>>> This is obviously a huge, well-run program with a big budget.Is it > part > >> of a social movement? I would say that not only is it not part of a > social > >> movement, it?s actually part of the problem.Think what that money could > do > >> if it was spent in the public school system itself, instead of a > non-profit > >> that draws tax deduction donations from businesses. > >>>> > >>>> Really well-written, though. Very publishable. > >>>> > >>>> Helena Worthen > >>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com > >>>> Berkeley, CA 9470 Phone VN 0168 4628562 > >>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: > >>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com > >>>> skype: helena.worthen1 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Oct 12, 2017, at 8:13 AM, mike cole wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Helena! > >>>>> > >>>>> Can you also come to Colin's assistance in discussing the paper about > >> the > >>>>> All-Stars that is the article de jeur? Andy raised the question of > >> whether > >>>>> its worthwhile to think about whether such efforts constitute social > >>>>> movements. But I am interested in the question. > >>>>> > >>>>> When I do a project like the 5thDimension, and what starts out as > just > >>>>> another design experiment turns into a study of sustainability > because > >> it > >>>>> "catches on", I do not think of myself as studying social movements. > >> But > >>>>> when an organization has a budget of 10 million dollars a year, and > >>>>> operates on such a large, institutionalized scale, and keeps pushing > >> (say) > >>>>> for social justice by organizing resistance to forced removal from > >> housing, > >>>>> it seems a whole lot like a social movement to me. > >>>>> > >>>>> "What," to quote our friend, Eugene, "do you think?" > >>>>> > >>>>> mike > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Helena Worthen < > >> helenaworthen@gmail.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Yes, I will certainly come to Colin?s assistance!! This is a > >> wonderful, > >>>>>> small conference where students from PhD programs in various > countries > >>>>>> (mostly Europe and the US, and the presentations are in English) > come > >> to > >>>>>> bring research that I?ve found fascinating both for theoretical > >> orientation > >>>>>> and sheer fresh content. Also presenting are mentors and professors > >> of the > >>>>>> students and some people like myself and Joe who come unattached, > >> just to > >>>>>> learn. Colin organizes enough pub and restaurant activities to > >> encourage > >>>>>> plenty of side conversations. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We are seriously thinking of coming again this spring, despite being > >> in > >>>>>> Viet Nam right now. Manchester is an endlessly interesting city with > >>>>>> manageable museums, especially for labor educators. Manchester > >> Metropolitan > >>>>>> is a short bus ride away from City Center but also near some > low-cost > >>>>>> hotels. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> H > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Helena Worthen > >>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com > >>>>>> Berkeley, CA 9470 Phone VN 0168 4628562 > >>>>>> Blog US/ Viet Nam: > >>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com > >>>>>> skype: helena.worthen1 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > From ablunden@mira.net Thu Oct 12 04:53:59 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 22:53:59 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Does the All-Stars article document a social movement? In-Reply-To: References: <1507737439586.15380@mmu.ac.uk> <1507744091062.2815@mmu.ac.uk> <1507745635518.14658@iped.uio.no> <2D722419-3DCB-4E9A-BC5A-43BA50AA1D97@gmail.com> Message-ID: David the typical kind of social movement discourse I find useless is the demarcation issues which academic departments and learned journals engage in to decide whether some social process fits in their subject area. This kind of discourse takes the peace, civil rights, anti-war, feminist and environmental movements of the 1960s and 70s as models and something is a "social movement" by comparison with these models. So I am saying it adds nothing to prove that the All Stars Project is or is not a social movement. The study of social movements has given us theoretical and empirical material to understand how ideas (practices) spread, the conditions which promote or inhibit their growth, the kind of life=process movements have, how they interact and influence each other, etc., etc. This material turns out to be useful across a wide range of social processes, processes which are in fact generically connected with one another. What is the purpose of ruling out activities which have not (yet) begun to proliferate, or which have faded out or been displaced by other activities or been co-opted or institutionalised, from study using concepts derived from social movement studies, and vice versa? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 12/10/2017 10:03 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > ... Andy. (I also > think that your own position makes no sense. On the one hand, the whole > question of what social movement is can be dismissed as "useless". On the > other hand, the moment when a social movement stops moving is a "useful > lens".) > > On Oct 12, 2017, at 3:53 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > Helena, the assessment of the All Stars Project Inc. as a > "social movement" is nothing to do with what takes place > between the kids who are recruited into the program and the > adult organisers. It is to do with the process described on > pp. 221-222 in which group of good citizens around the US > and in other countries pick up the All Stars franchise, or > emulate it under a different name and do what they take to > be good work in helping poor kids. What makes it relevant > from a social movement point of view is this *proliferation* > and emulation, with people freely associating themselves > with the project by their own free will to join with its > objective, rather than for reward. Apparently this process > has been rolling on for 36 years. > > Generally speaking I think the question of whether this is > or is not a social movement is a useless question; it is the > dynamic of spreading from an isolated solution to a social > problem, proliferating through others freely participating > towards the project's object and eventually either dying out > or becoming an institution which makes the "social movement" > lens useful. > > Andy > > From lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org Thu Oct 12 09:14:40 2017 From: lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org (Lois Holzman) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 12:14:40 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Does the All-Stars article document a social movement? In-Reply-To: References: <1507737439586.15380@mmu.ac.uk> <1507744091062.2815@mmu.ac.uk> <1507745635518.14658@iped.uio.no> <2D722419-3DCB-4E9A-BC5A-43BA50AA1D97@gmail.com> Message-ID: I?ll jump in here to comment on two issues brought up in relation to the All Stars and Carrie?s article?one on social movements and another on play and performance. We usually think of social movements as efforts/activities where people protest, take to the streets, demonstrate, make demands, etc. The All Stars is a different approach to social change and cultural transformation. Its approach is to build alternatives to the failing, oppressive, authoritarian institutions that suppress us economically, culturally, socially, emotionally and to build self-sustaining, self-governing institutions, to build something *other*, and to involve masses of people from all walks of life in that effort. The founders of the All Stars (both the official founders Lenora Fulani and Fred Newman, and the unofficial hundred or so others like myself) were (and as Mike referenced related to the move in NYC to privatize public housing) still are engaged in more traditional-looking protest. I say traditional looking because I don?t think it is typical protest because of who is leading it and what it is part of. It is an organizing effort, an effort to engage people in activities through which they can see differently and can qualitatively transform. Fulani did not run for US President in 1988 and 1992 to win, but to organize people to see new possibilities for themselves, their communities and their country?and to take action. I think that the All Stars is a new way of engaging poverty than those that we?ve witnessed and perhaps been involved in, a way that over the decades has involved thousands of people, poor, wealthy, and in-between. This kind of work takes the long view, something Micah White, co-founder of occupy Wall Street, writes about (among lots of other things) in his book, *The End of Protest: A New Playbook for Revolution*. Please read the book! With regard to play and performance and their similarities and differences? In some ways, the two terms are interchangeable for the All Stars (in ways that, apparently, are provocative). In this regard, the All Stars? methodology is part of what?s come to be called the performance turn, and the recognition (at long last!) of the necessity of play for human development and learning?and cultural transformation. This methodology plays loose with Vygotsky?s understanding of children?s pretend play and, if you will, ?exploits? the richness of his dialectical understanding of play being how and where children are ?a head taller? (going beyond what you can do and normally do do in ?real life?). For teens and adults, performing is a way to break out of ?real life??the rigid identities and the roles that a society casts us in and the ones we develop as reactions (protests) to them?and to actively and continuously create who we?re becoming. Building something outside of the state apparatus, and working with a methodology of play and performance to support human/community development come together in the emergence of what I like to call a new kind of social activism?performance activism. It?s not just the All Stars; thousands of people and projects in every country of the world are engaging not only poverty, but violence, environmental destruction and every manner of social justice and human rights violation through the building of independent organizations and projects in which people play and perform their way to a modicum of de-alienation. I don?t know if this constitutes a social movement. What I am sure of is that people are in motion, creating new ways to see and be together. Given our world, I don?t know how else, other than performing it, we can do this. I hope this is helpful in moving the discussion along. By the way, back many months (maybe February) I described the community of which the All Stars is a part in a post responding to interest on this list in Richard Schechner, who is a friend of the All Stars, and his work in performance. No one commented on it. Perhaps this is another chance. Lois On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > David the typical kind of social movement discourse I find > useless is the demarcation issues which academic departments > and learned journals engage in to decide whether some social > process fits in their subject area. This kind of discourse > takes the peace, civil rights, anti-war, feminist and > environmental movements of the 1960s and 70s as models and > something is a "social movement" by comparison with these > models. > > So I am saying it adds nothing to prove that the All Stars > Project is or is not a social movement. > > The study of social movements has given us theoretical and > empirical material to understand how ideas (practices) > spread, the conditions which promote or inhibit their > growth, the kind of life=process movements have, how they > interact and influence each other, etc., etc. This material > turns out to be useful across a wide range of social > processes, processes which are in fact generically connected > with one another. What is the purpose of ruling out > activities which have not (yet) begun to proliferate, or > which have faded out or been displaced by other activities > or been co-opted or institutionalised, from study using > concepts derived from social movement studies, and vice versa? > > Andy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 12/10/2017 10:03 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > ... Andy. (I also > > think that your own position makes no sense. On the one hand, the whole > > question of what social movement is can be dismissed as "useless". On the > > other hand, the moment when a social movement stops moving is a "useful > > lens".) > > > > On Oct 12, 2017, at 3:53 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > > Helena, the assessment of the All Stars Project Inc. as a > > "social movement" is nothing to do with what takes place > > between the kids who are recruited into the program and the > > adult organisers. It is to do with the process described on > > pp. 221-222 in which group of good citizens around the US > > and in other countries pick up the All Stars franchise, or > > emulate it under a different name and do what they take to > > be good work in helping poor kids. What makes it relevant > > from a social movement point of view is this *proliferation* > > and emulation, with people freely associating themselves > > with the project by their own free will to join with its > > objective, rather than for reward. Apparently this process > > has been rolling on for 36 years. > > > > Generally speaking I think the question of whether this is > > or is not a social movement is a useless question; it is the > > dynamic of spreading from an isolated solution to a social > > problem, proliferating through others freely participating > > towards the project's object and eventually either dying out > > or becoming an institution which makes the "social movement" > > lens useful. > > > > Andy > > > > > > -- Lois Holzman Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term Psychotherapy 119 West 23 St, suite 902 New York, NY 10011 Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324 Fax +1.718.797.3966 lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org Social Media Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter Blogs Psychology Today | Psychology of Becoming | Mad in America Websites Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World All Stars Project From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Oct 12 10:41:19 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 10:41:19 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Social Movements Discussion: From Lois Holtzman Message-ID: Hmmm, it appears that gremlins have gotten into Lois's xmca contact. This note from earlier in the day went missing, she got concerned, and so I am forwarding her message while Bruce tracks down the problem. mike ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Lois Holzman Date: Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:14 PM Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Does the All-Stars article document a social movement? To: ablunden@mira.net, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> I?ll jump in here to comment on two issues brought up in relation to the All Stars and Carrie?s article?one on social movements and another on play and performance. We usually think of social movements as efforts/activities where people protest, take to the streets, demonstrate, make demands, etc. The All Stars is a different approach to social change and cultural transformation. Its approach is to build alternatives to the failing, oppressive, authoritarian institutions that suppress us economically, culturally, socially, emotionally and to build self-sustaining, self-governing institutions, to build something *other*, and to involve masses of people from all walks of life in that effort. The founders of the All Stars (both the official founders Lenora Fulani and Fred Newman, and the unofficial hundred or so others like myself) were (and as Mike referenced related to the move in NYC to privatize public housing) still are engaged in more traditional-looking protest. I say traditional looking because I don?t think it is typical protest because of who is leading it and what it is part of. It is an organizing effort, an effort to engage people in activities through which they can see differently and can qualitatively transform. Fulani did not run for US President in 1988 and 1992 to win, but to organize people to see new possibilities for themselves, their communities and their country?and to take action. I think that the All Stars is a new way of engaging poverty than those that we?ve witnessed and perhaps been involved in, a way that over the decades has involved thousands of people, poor, wealthy, and in-between. This kind of work takes the long view, something Micah White, co-founder of occupy Wall Street, writes about (among lots of other things) in his book, *The End of Protest: A New Playbook for Revolution*. Please read the book! From lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org Thu Oct 12 10:53:18 2017 From: lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org (Lois Holzman) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:53:18 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Social Movements Discussion: From Lois Holtzman In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mike, This is only part of my post. Here is the whole post again. I?ll jump in here to comment on two issues brought up in relation to the All Stars and Carrie?s article?one on social movements and another on play and performance. We usually think of social movements as efforts/activities where people protest, take to the streets, demonstrate, make demands, etc. The All Stars is a different approach to social change and cultural transformation. Its approach is to build alternatives to the failing, oppressive, authoritarian institutions that suppress us economically, culturally, socially, emotionally and to build self-sustaining, self-governing institutions, to build something other, and to involve masses of people from all walks of life in that effort. The founders of the All Stars (both the official founders Lenora Fulani and Fred Newman, and the unofficial hundred or so others like myself) were (and as Mike referenced related to the move in NYC to privatize public housing) still are engaged in more traditional-looking protest. I say traditional looking because I don?t think it is typical protest because of who is leading it and what it is part of. It is an organizing effort, an effort to engage people in activities through which they can see differently and can qualitatively transform. Fulani did not run for US President in 1988 and 1992 to win, but to organize people to see new possibilities for themselves, their communities and their country?and to take action. I think that the All Stars is a new way of engaging poverty than those that we?ve witnessed and perhaps been involved in, a way that over the decades has involved thousands of people, poor, wealthy, and in-between. This kind of work takes the long view, something Micah White, co-founder of occupy Wall Street, writes about (among lots of other things) in his book, *The End of Protest: A New Playbook for Revolution*. Please read the book! With regard to play and performance and their similarities and differences? In some ways, the two terms are interchangeable for the All Stars (in ways that, apparently, are provocative). In this regard, the All Stars? methodology is part of what?s come to be called the performance turn, and the recognition (at long last!) of the necessity of play for human development and learning?and cultural transformation. This methodology plays loose with Vygotsky?s understanding of children?s pretend play and, if you will, ?exploits? the richness of his dialectical understanding of play being how and where children are ?a head taller? (going beyond what you can do and normally do do in ?real life?). For teens and adults, performing is a way to break out of ?real life??the rigid identities and the roles that a society casts us in and the ones we develop as reactions (protests) to them?and to actively and continuously create who we?re becoming. Building something outside of the state apparatus, and working with a methodology of play and performance to support human/community development come together in the emergence of what I like to call a new kind of social activism?performance activism. It?s not just the All Stars; thousands of people and projects in every country of the world are engaging not only poverty, but violence, environmental destruction and every manner of social justice and human rights violation through the building of independent organizations and projects in which people play and perform their way to a modicum of de-alienation. I don?t know if this constitutes a social movement. What I am sure of is that people are in motion, creating new ways to see and be together. Given our world, I don?t know how else, other than performing it, we can do this. I hope this is helpful in moving the discussion along. By the way, back many months (maybe February) I described the community of which the All Stars is a part in a post responding to interest on this list in Richard Schechner, who is a friend of the All Stars, and his work in performance. No one commented on it. Perhaps this is another chance. Lois On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 1:41 PM, mike cole wrote: > Hmmm, it appears that gremlins have gotten into Lois's xmca contact. This > note from earlier in the day > went missing, she got concerned, and so I am forwarding her message while > Bruce tracks down the problem. > > mike > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Lois Holzman > Date: Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:14 PM > Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Does the All-Stars article document a social > movement? > To: ablunden@mira.net, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> > > > I?ll jump in here to comment on two issues brought up in relation to the > All Stars and Carrie?s article?one on social movements and another on play > and performance. > > > > We usually think of social movements as efforts/activities where people > protest, take to the streets, demonstrate, make demands, etc. The All Stars > is a different approach to social change and cultural transformation. Its > approach is to build alternatives to the failing, oppressive, authoritarian > institutions that suppress us economically, culturally, socially, > emotionally and to build self-sustaining, self-governing institutions, to > build something *other*, and to involve masses of people from all walks > of life in that effort. > > The founders of the All Stars (both the official founders Lenora Fulani > and Fred Newman, and the unofficial hundred or so others like myself) were > (and as Mike referenced related to the move in NYC to privatize public > housing) still are engaged in more traditional-looking protest. I say > traditional looking because I don?t think it is typical protest because of > who is leading it and what it is part of. It is an organizing effort, an > effort to engage people in activities through which they can see > differently and can qualitatively transform. Fulani did not run for US > President in 1988 and 1992 to win, but to organize people to see new > possibilities for themselves, their communities and their country?and to > take action. I think that the All Stars is a new way of engaging poverty > than those that we?ve witnessed and perhaps been involved in, a way that > over the decades has involved thousands of people, poor, wealthy, and > in-between. This kind of work takes the long view, something Micah White, > co-founder of occupy Wall Street, writes about (among lots of other things) > in his book, *The End of Protest: A New Playbook for Revolution*. Please > read the book! > -- Lois Holzman Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term Psychotherapy 119 West 23 St, suite 902 New York, NY 10011 Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324 Fax +1.718.797.3966 lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org Social Media Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter Blogs Psychology Today | Psychology of Becoming | Mad in America Websites Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World All Stars Project From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Oct 12 10:56:22 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 10:56:22 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Social Movements Discussion: From Lois Holtzman In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This message seems to have come through, Lois. For some reason lchc.ucsd.edu is unreachable. Bruce is checking on it shortly. Sorry if anyone else had difficulties. mike On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Lois Holzman < lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org> wrote: > Mike, > This is only part of my post. > > Here is the whole post again. > > I?ll jump in here to comment on two issues brought up in relation to the > All Stars and Carrie?s article?one on social movements and another on play > and performance. > > > > We usually think of social movements as efforts/activities where people > protest, take to the streets, demonstrate, make demands, etc. The All Stars > is a different approach to social change and cultural transformation. Its > approach is to build alternatives to the failing, oppressive, authoritarian > institutions that suppress us economically, culturally, socially, > emotionally and to build self-sustaining, self-governing institutions, to > build something other, and to involve masses of people from all walks of > life in that effort. > > The founders of the All Stars (both the official founders Lenora Fulani > and Fred Newman, and the unofficial hundred or so others like myself) were > (and as Mike referenced related to the move in NYC to privatize public > housing) still are engaged in more traditional-looking protest. I say > traditional looking because I don?t think it is typical protest because of > who is leading it and what it is part of. It is an organizing effort, an > effort to engage people in activities through which they can see > differently and can qualitatively transform. Fulani did not run for US > President in 1988 and 1992 to win, but to organize people to see new > possibilities for themselves, their communities and their country?and to > take action. I think that the All Stars is a new way of engaging poverty > than those that we?ve witnessed and perhaps been involved in, a way that > over the decades has involved thousands of people, poor, wealthy, and > in-between. This kind of work takes the long view, something Micah White, > co-founder of occupy Wall Street, writes about (among lots of other things) > in his book, *The End of Protest: A New Playbook for Revolution*. Please > read the book! > > > > With regard to play and performance and their similarities and > differences? In some ways, the two terms are interchangeable for the All > Stars (in ways that, apparently, are provocative). In this regard, the All > Stars? methodology is part of what?s come to be called the performance > turn, and the recognition (at long last!) of the necessity of play for > human development and learning?and cultural transformation. This > methodology plays loose with Vygotsky?s understanding of children?s pretend > play and, if you will, ?exploits? the richness of his dialectical > understanding of play being how and where children are ?a head taller? > (going beyond what you can do and normally do do in ?real life?). For teens > and adults, performing is a way to break out of ?real life??the rigid > identities and the roles that a society casts us in and the ones we develop > as reactions (protests) to them?and to actively and continuously create who > we?re becoming. > > > > Building something outside of the state apparatus, and working with a > methodology of play and performance to support human/community development > come together in the emergence of what I like to call a new kind of social > activism?performance activism. It?s not just the All Stars; thousands of > people and projects in every country of the world are engaging not only > poverty, but violence, environmental destruction and every manner of social > justice and human rights violation through the building of independent > organizations and projects in which people play and perform their way to a > modicum of de-alienation. I don?t know if this constitutes a social > movement. What I am sure of is that people are in motion, creating new ways > to see and be together. Given our world, I don?t know how else, other than > performing it, we can do this. > > > > I hope this is helpful in moving the discussion along. > > By the way, back many months (maybe February) I described the community of > which the All Stars is a part in a post responding to interest on this list > in Richard Schechner, who is a friend of the All Stars, and his work in > performance. No one commented on it. Perhaps this is another chance. > > > Lois > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 1:41 PM, mike cole wrote: > >> Hmmm, it appears that gremlins have gotten into Lois's xmca contact. This >> note from earlier in the day >> went missing, she got concerned, and so I am forwarding her message while >> Bruce tracks down the problem. >> >> mike >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Lois Holzman >> Date: Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:14 PM >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Does the All-Stars article document a social >> movement? >> To: ablunden@mira.net, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> >> >> >> I?ll jump in here to comment on two issues brought up in relation to the >> All Stars and Carrie?s article?one on social movements and another on play >> and performance. >> >> >> >> We usually think of social movements as efforts/activities where people >> protest, take to the streets, demonstrate, make demands, etc. The All Stars >> is a different approach to social change and cultural transformation. Its >> approach is to build alternatives to the failing, oppressive, authoritarian >> institutions that suppress us economically, culturally, socially, >> emotionally and to build self-sustaining, self-governing institutions, to >> build something *other*, and to involve masses of people from all walks >> of life in that effort. >> >> The founders of the All Stars (both the official founders Lenora Fulani >> and Fred Newman, and the unofficial hundred or so others like myself) were >> (and as Mike referenced related to the move in NYC to privatize public >> housing) still are engaged in more traditional-looking protest. I say >> traditional looking because I don?t think it is typical protest because of >> who is leading it and what it is part of. It is an organizing effort, an >> effort to engage people in activities through which they can see >> differently and can qualitatively transform. Fulani did not run for US >> President in 1988 and 1992 to win, but to organize people to see new >> possibilities for themselves, their communities and their country?and to >> take action. I think that the All Stars is a new way of engaging poverty >> than those that we?ve witnessed and perhaps been involved in, a way that >> over the decades has involved thousands of people, poor, wealthy, and >> in-between. This kind of work takes the long view, something Micah White, >> co-founder of occupy Wall Street, writes about (among lots of other things) >> in his book, *The End of Protest: A New Playbook for Revolution*. Please >> read the book! >> > > > > -- > Lois Holzman > Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term Psychotherapy > 119 West 23 St, suite 902 > > New York, NY 10011 > > Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX > Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324 > Fax +1.718.797.3966 > lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org > Social Media > Facebook | LinkedIn > | Twitter > > Blogs > Psychology Today > | Psychology > of Becoming | Mad in America > > Websites > Lois Holzman | East Side Institute > | Performing the World > > All Stars Project > From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Thu Oct 12 13:53:16 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 20:53:16 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Does the All-Stars article document a social movement? In-Reply-To: References: <1507737439586.15380@mmu.ac.uk> <1507744091062.2815@mmu.ac.uk> <1507745635518.14658@iped.uio.no> <2D722419-3DCB-4E9A-BC5A-43BA50AA1D97@gmail.com> , Message-ID: <1507841597407.62222@iped.uio.no> In her post, Lois refers to a previous post where she gave a detailed and beautiful description of the project development community of which the All Stars is part. That previous description can be accessed here: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.2017-02.dir/msg00063.html Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Lois Holzman Sent: 12 October 2017 18:14 To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Does the All-Stars article document a social movement? I?ll jump in here to comment on two issues brought up in relation to the All Stars and Carrie?s article?one on social movements and another on play and performance. We usually think of social movements as efforts/activities where people protest, take to the streets, demonstrate, make demands, etc. The All Stars is a different approach to social change and cultural transformation. Its approach is to build alternatives to the failing, oppressive, authoritarian institutions that suppress us economically, culturally, socially, emotionally and to build self-sustaining, self-governing institutions, to build something *other*, and to involve masses of people from all walks of life in that effort. The founders of the All Stars (both the official founders Lenora Fulani and Fred Newman, and the unofficial hundred or so others like myself) were (and as Mike referenced related to the move in NYC to privatize public housing) still are engaged in more traditional-looking protest. I say traditional looking because I don?t think it is typical protest because of who is leading it and what it is part of. It is an organizing effort, an effort to engage people in activities through which they can see differently and can qualitatively transform. Fulani did not run for US President in 1988 and 1992 to win, but to organize people to see new possibilities for themselves, their communities and their country?and to take action. I think that the All Stars is a new way of engaging poverty than those that we?ve witnessed and perhaps been involved in, a way that over the decades has involved thousands of people, poor, wealthy, and in-between. This kind of work takes the long view, something Micah White, co-founder of occupy Wall Street, writes about (among lots of other things) in his book, *The End of Protest: A New Playbook for Revolution*. Please read the book! With regard to play and performance and their similarities and differences? In some ways, the two terms are interchangeable for the All Stars (in ways that, apparently, are provocative). In this regard, the All Stars? methodology is part of what?s come to be called the performance turn, and the recognition (at long last!) of the necessity of play for human development and learning?and cultural transformation. This methodology plays loose with Vygotsky?s understanding of children?s pretend play and, if you will, ?exploits? the richness of his dialectical understanding of play being how and where children are ?a head taller? (going beyond what you can do and normally do do in ?real life?). For teens and adults, performing is a way to break out of ?real life??the rigid identities and the roles that a society casts us in and the ones we develop as reactions (protests) to them?and to actively and continuously create who we?re becoming. Building something outside of the state apparatus, and working with a methodology of play and performance to support human/community development come together in the emergence of what I like to call a new kind of social activism?performance activism. It?s not just the All Stars; thousands of people and projects in every country of the world are engaging not only poverty, but violence, environmental destruction and every manner of social justice and human rights violation through the building of independent organizations and projects in which people play and perform their way to a modicum of de-alienation. I don?t know if this constitutes a social movement. What I am sure of is that people are in motion, creating new ways to see and be together. Given our world, I don?t know how else, other than performing it, we can do this. I hope this is helpful in moving the discussion along. By the way, back many months (maybe February) I described the community of which the All Stars is a part in a post responding to interest on this list in Richard Schechner, who is a friend of the All Stars, and his work in performance. No one commented on it. Perhaps this is another chance. Lois On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > David the typical kind of social movement discourse I find > useless is the demarcation issues which academic departments > and learned journals engage in to decide whether some social > process fits in their subject area. This kind of discourse > takes the peace, civil rights, anti-war, feminist and > environmental movements of the 1960s and 70s as models and > something is a "social movement" by comparison with these > models. > > So I am saying it adds nothing to prove that the All Stars > Project is or is not a social movement. > > The study of social movements has given us theoretical and > empirical material to understand how ideas (practices) > spread, the conditions which promote or inhibit their > growth, the kind of life=process movements have, how they > interact and influence each other, etc., etc. This material > turns out to be useful across a wide range of social > processes, processes which are in fact generically connected > with one another. What is the purpose of ruling out > activities which have not (yet) begun to proliferate, or > which have faded out or been displaced by other activities > or been co-opted or institutionalised, from study using > concepts derived from social movement studies, and vice versa? > > Andy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 12/10/2017 10:03 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > ... Andy. (I also > > think that your own position makes no sense. On the one hand, the whole > > question of what social movement is can be dismissed as "useless". On the > > other hand, the moment when a social movement stops moving is a "useful > > lens".) > > > > On Oct 12, 2017, at 3:53 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > > Helena, the assessment of the All Stars Project Inc. as a > > "social movement" is nothing to do with what takes place > > between the kids who are recruited into the program and the > > adult organisers. It is to do with the process described on > > pp. 221-222 in which group of good citizens around the US > > and in other countries pick up the All Stars franchise, or > > emulate it under a different name and do what they take to > > be good work in helping poor kids. What makes it relevant > > from a social movement point of view is this *proliferation* > > and emulation, with people freely associating themselves > > with the project by their own free will to join with its > > objective, rather than for reward. Apparently this process > > has been rolling on for 36 years. > > > > Generally speaking I think the question of whether this is > > or is not a social movement is a useless question; it is the > > dynamic of spreading from an isolated solution to a social > > problem, proliferating through others freely participating > > towards the project's object and eventually either dying out > > or becoming an institution which makes the "social movement" > > lens useful. > > > > Andy > > > > > > -- Lois Holzman Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term Psychotherapy 119 West 23 St, suite 902 New York, NY 10011 Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324 Fax +1.718.797.3966 lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org Social Media Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter Blogs Psychology Today | Psychology of Becoming | Mad in America Websites Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World All Stars Project From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Thu Oct 12 14:28:18 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 21:28:18 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Does the All-Stars article document a social movement? In-Reply-To: References: <1507737439586.15380@mmu.ac.uk> <1507744091062.2815@mmu.ac.uk> <1507745635518.14658@iped.uio.no> <2D722419-3DCB-4E9A-BC5A-43BA50AA1D97@gmail.com> , Message-ID: <1507843698747.92163@iped.uio.no> I think, Andy, that an example in which it is important to find out whether something is (or has as one of its parts) a social movement or not can be found in the current events in Catalonian society, where what clearly has been a political movement has been said to have turned into a social movement when many hundreds of thousands, up to millions, have civically organized to disobey the central state to defend the political movement. Of course, it may be said that the movement was never only political, but the way it has developed the last months is primarily so (all relevant developments happened as parliamentary transactions). In line with what you say, I am inclined to think that whether or not we treat what we are seeing in Catalonia's streets as a social movement or not is crucial to assess which position we should take on it. Not trying to diverge the discussion more, but, along with David K., I'd like to point out that ruling out whether this is a movement that belongs to those who move or not is important. I think many in Catalonia and in Spain are confused and in big part this confusion has to do with not being sure if their movement is theirs or is only a service to a political movement that serves causes other than the people. I would also like to note that I too found Helena's commentary very adequate and reflecting very similar thoughts/feelings that I share. I tried to raise a similar issue asking whether the issue of *needs* was important to consider, for performance not to just be fake but be fake but not fake (as one of the participants in the study puts it). Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: 12 October 2017 13:53 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Does the All-Stars article document a social movement? David the typical kind of social movement discourse I find useless is the demarcation issues which academic departments and learned journals engage in to decide whether some social process fits in their subject area. This kind of discourse takes the peace, civil rights, anti-war, feminist and environmental movements of the 1960s and 70s as models and something is a "social movement" by comparison with these models. So I am saying it adds nothing to prove that the All Stars Project is or is not a social movement. The study of social movements has given us theoretical and empirical material to understand how ideas (practices) spread, the conditions which promote or inhibit their growth, the kind of life=process movements have, how they interact and influence each other, etc., etc. This material turns out to be useful across a wide range of social processes, processes which are in fact generically connected with one another. What is the purpose of ruling out activities which have not (yet) begun to proliferate, or which have faded out or been displaced by other activities or been co-opted or institutionalised, from study using concepts derived from social movement studies, and vice versa? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 12/10/2017 10:03 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > ... Andy. (I also > think that your own position makes no sense. On the one hand, the whole > question of what social movement is can be dismissed as "useless". On the > other hand, the moment when a social movement stops moving is a "useful > lens".) > > On Oct 12, 2017, at 3:53 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > Helena, the assessment of the All Stars Project Inc. as a > "social movement" is nothing to do with what takes place > between the kids who are recruited into the program and the > adult organisers. It is to do with the process described on > pp. 221-222 in which group of good citizens around the US > and in other countries pick up the All Stars franchise, or > emulate it under a different name and do what they take to > be good work in helping poor kids. What makes it relevant > from a social movement point of view is this *proliferation* > and emulation, with people freely associating themselves > with the project by their own free will to join with its > objective, rather than for reward. Apparently this process > has been rolling on for 36 years. > > Generally speaking I think the question of whether this is > or is not a social movement is a useless question; it is the > dynamic of spreading from an isolated solution to a social > problem, proliferating through others freely participating > towards the project's object and eventually either dying out > or becoming an institution which makes the "social movement" > lens useful. > > Andy > > From ablunden@mira.net Thu Oct 12 18:11:37 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 12:11:37 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Does the All-Stars article document a social movement? In-Reply-To: <1507843698747.92163@iped.uio.no> References: <1507737439586.15380@mmu.ac.uk> <1507744091062.2815@mmu.ac.uk> <1507745635518.14658@iped.uio.no> <2D722419-3DCB-4E9A-BC5A-43BA50AA1D97@gmail.com> <1507843698747.92163@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <33a8ea6a-5a57-7a6e-8616-99b830a3f053@mira.net> I think it's clear that this is not a movement which belongs to the kids who do the performing. It is a movement of adults seeking social change by means of organising kids to perform. Here's a quote from Myles Horton: "I thought that in order to have a better society, a more decent society, the only people who could change it were adults. We're always telling people we're preparing them for the future, and I discovered something. I discovered they made the same speeches when I graduated from grammar school, high school, and college. They always said when you get out of school then you can use what you've learned and the world will be yours and the future is for the young people. The same speech. And when I got out of college, out of graduate school, and everything I tried to do they said no, no, you can't do that. That's a wild idea. We know we have to do it - "customs" and so and so and so. So I thought the job of a school was to fit into the existing, to pass on the past and fit people into the existing system and that's all the schools could be in our society because they are an agent of the parent organisation like the United States is an agent of the capitalist system. ... I decided to work with adults old enough to be in the system, voters, and poor or disadvantaged because of race or being in a Third World country or a poor section of the United States, like here in Appalachia. There would be the people who most likely would have complaints, who'd want to do something about it." (The Myles Horton Reader, p. 59-60) Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 13/10/2017 8:28 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > I think, Andy, that an example in which it is important to find out whether something is (or has as one of its parts) a social movement or not can be found in the current events in Catalonian society, where what clearly has been a political movement has been said to have turned into a social movement when many hundreds of thousands, up to millions, have civically organized to disobey the central state to defend the political movement. Of course, it may be said that the movement was never only political, but the way it has developed the last months is primarily so (all relevant developments happened as parliamentary transactions). In line with what you say, I am inclined to think that whether or not we treat what we are seeing in Catalonia's streets as a social movement or not is crucial to assess which position we should take on it. > > Not trying to diverge the discussion more, but, along with David K., I'd like to point out that ruling out whether this is a movement that belongs to those who move or not is important. I think many in Catalonia and in Spain are confused and in big part this confusion has to do with not being sure if their movement is theirs or is only a service to a political movement that serves causes other than the people. > > I would also like to note that I too found Helena's commentary very adequate and reflecting very similar thoughts/feelings that I share. I tried to raise a similar issue asking whether the issue of *needs* was important to consider, for performance not to just be fake but be fake but not fake (as one of the participants in the study puts it). > > Alfredo > > > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden > Sent: 12 October 2017 13:53 > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Does the All-Stars article document a social movement? > > David the typical kind of social movement discourse I find > useless is the demarcation issues which academic departments > and learned journals engage in to decide whether some social > process fits in their subject area. This kind of discourse > takes the peace, civil rights, anti-war, feminist and > environmental movements of the 1960s and 70s as models and > something is a "social movement" by comparison with these > models. > > So I am saying it adds nothing to prove that the All Stars > Project is or is not a social movement. > > The study of social movements has given us theoretical and > empirical material to understand how ideas (practices) > spread, the conditions which promote or inhibit their > growth, the kind of life=process movements have, how they > interact and influence each other, etc., etc. This material > turns out to be useful across a wide range of social > processes, processes which are in fact generically connected > with one another. What is the purpose of ruling out > activities which have not (yet) begun to proliferate, or > which have faded out or been displaced by other activities > or been co-opted or institutionalised, from study using > concepts derived from social movement studies, and vice versa? > > Andy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 12/10/2017 10:03 PM, David Kellogg wrote: >> ... Andy. (I also >> think that your own position makes no sense. On the one hand, the whole >> question of what social movement is can be dismissed as "useless". On the >> other hand, the moment when a social movement stops moving is a "useful >> lens".) >> >> On Oct 12, 2017, at 3:53 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >> Helena, the assessment of the All Stars Project Inc. as a >> "social movement" is nothing to do with what takes place >> between the kids who are recruited into the program and the >> adult organisers. It is to do with the process described on >> pp. 221-222 in which group of good citizens around the US >> and in other countries pick up the All Stars franchise, or >> emulate it under a different name and do what they take to >> be good work in helping poor kids. What makes it relevant >> from a social movement point of view is this *proliferation* >> and emulation, with people freely associating themselves >> with the project by their own free will to join with its >> objective, rather than for reward. Apparently this process >> has been rolling on for 36 years. >> >> Generally speaking I think the question of whether this is >> or is not a social movement is a useless question; it is the >> dynamic of spreading from an isolated solution to a social >> problem, proliferating through others freely participating >> towards the project's object and eventually either dying out >> or becoming an institution which makes the "social movement" >> lens useful. >> >> Andy >> >> From alexander.surmava@yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 05:57:57 2017 From: alexander.surmava@yahoo.com (Alexander Surmava) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 12:57:57 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiAgUmU6IE9iamVjdCBvcmllbnRlZCBhY3Rpdml0eSBh?= =?utf-8?q?nd_communication?= In-Reply-To: References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Andy!I am glad that our communication was resumed after many years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and files and found that the problem of "object oriented activity OR communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is serious and it deserves to return to it today.Last year I was close to being silent forever. Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my descendants :-).I will begin with honest recognition that I do not understand your question. What means the distinction between singular and plural number in your remark? Could you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of reflexive activity" (that is the title of my dissertation work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's "Theory of Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, having understood the theoretic meaning of your claims to AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily understand the essence of your objections to me.In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a particular empirical case of its manifestation. Therefore, object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just like Matter, Nature, or Substance.Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come across only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old philosophers and that only the numerous individual "atomic facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar positivism and empiricism.However, all of this may not apply to your position ...I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue.Best wishesSasha ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden ?????(?): I'll ask Sasha a question. Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial category can only be object-oriented activity" as it stands, in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be that you are translating it from a Russian statement that is correct. Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in when I say "every activity has an object."? But in your expression above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and unless you are a religious person is not something which can have a specific object. All English translations of A N Leontyev make this mistake which has caused no end of confusion among English-speakers. Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," just as you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Dear Sasha, all, > > > thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding response. I think you are right in your assertion that we are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. However, one can see in the lack of response by other members?? that not everyone has the privilege of the time it requires to go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce and I hope it is/will be appreciated as such. > > > If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I quote from your response: > > > "If we want to make our choice of the initial category, without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will choose the one of the two categories from which one can derive the entire diversity of human life, including another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that such an initial category can only be object-oriented activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" > > > If we stay within the boundaries of the framework according to which we are looking of the most original germ cell, the one from which all others can be developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree on that. > > > But ??once we are back to the development of a concrete Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact that, for any child to participate in human forms of object-oriented activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into those forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you describe, is this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, or is it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? > > > As moderator, I should stop there and let others answer (which I hope some do). > > As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: > > > Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of teaching deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this is only possible through *involvement* in collective activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is only possible in and through object-oriented activity). But then, is not the teaching, the instructional aspect of the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all those attributes that you just called 'spiritually uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get collective activity without them? On this, and precisely in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of Man", Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in that case that communication is included in activity and is its essential component: without relation to another person(s), activity is impossible'? (144). Although I not always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I can't see how he can be wrong. > > > So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the category of object-oriented activity, is most primary. Let me also note that ?there are other authors who have developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom affectivity is the concrete 'essence of auto-affection' ( https://www.amazon.com/Incarnation-Philosophy-Studies-Phenomenology-Existential/dp/0810131269 ) > > > As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I wonder whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity and communication. Is not the distinction just an artefact of a partial understanding of what it means activity and what it means communicating. I still feel that communication, in the sense of addressivity that Mikhailov describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I don't see how any practical activity can have any sense (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are talking about; one machines could perform on their own without consciousness. ? > > > Best wishes, > > Alfredo > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Alexander Surmava > Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole > Subject: Object oriented activity and communication > > Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, touching on the most fundamental categories. But before proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica aside) :-) > Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, based on the general principles accepted in its framework and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a common, unifying conception are usually considered the theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the interpretation of these concepts. > For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is possible to consider both objective activity and communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? > I am convinced that without answering these and similar fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry and without answering them in the most general form, we are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, based on which we can practically solve socially significant problems, let us say, create a consistently democratic education system, we draw everyone to the interesting only for us theoretical verbiage about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between Vygotsky and Leontiev. > Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too to reflect on how to help find the path to education and culture for the children of poor migrants from Central Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > > Agitprop >? ? ? ? ? ? ? sticks >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? in my teeth too, > and I?d rather >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? compose >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? romances for you - > more profit in it >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? and more charm. > But I >? ? ? ? subdued >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? myself, >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? setting my heel > on the throat >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of my own song. >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Vladimir Mayakovski > > ? ??? >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????? ?????, > ? ??? ?? >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????? ?? ??? ? > ???????? ??? >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????. > ?? ? >? ? ? ? ???? >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????, >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????????? > ?? ????? >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????? ?????. >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? ?????????? > > > Among other things, such an over and over again forced return to the very foundation makes it difficult to understand even these very basics, for it forces us to return to the most abstract level all the time, literally stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract to the concrete. > Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions about how to understand the principle of interaction as such and about the relationship of object oriented activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed answers to these questions have been formulated by me in my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? ????????????. Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is available in English. It was even sent in published in English international journal... but for some strange reason was not published then or later. > So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, especially since I can answer by quoting my old text https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS. > But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" is also an interaction, but that is its highest, essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense that one can not in principle separate out its active and passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in the process of positing of an object one side is active, subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There are many interesting differences between them, but let us return to this somehow later. > In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation work of 1988: > ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant leaves (with his telescope). > That is to say that living, active or predmet relation as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital activity. > Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into contact with its living subjectivity. To put it differently, we can find not the slightest trace of predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive relation.? > Now about the object oriented activity and communication, and it does not matter whether in the verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's "addressing" to another person. > Which of these two categories should be considered primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and remains the central problem of theoretical psychology associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and Ilyenkov. > To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want to build scientific psychology in accordance with the famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers believed that the method of ascent, the method of "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one thing - either activity or communication. And at first glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations.. " > And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely scientific psychology consisted only in the need to reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely difficult situation, because the classics left us with different meanings on this topic and with which of them it is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, and with which in the second, it would still have to be solved by ourselves. > So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was AN Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" were for communication. > Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something rather indecent. > The end of the discussion between supporters of "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of Leontief's psychology department was appointed a well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in the ideological department of the Central Committee of CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed? supporters of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE could not reverse the situation too. > Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to "communication" and "activity." > If we want to make our choice of the initial category, without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will choose the one of the two categories from which one can derive the entire diversity of human life, including another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that such an initial category can only be object-oriented activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. > And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and the entire affective sphere associated with it is first generated by objective activity at the most basic level, in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. And, finally, it demonstrates how the external reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, together and practically producing their own lives, assumes a specifically human character, being a reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. > We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" communication and the affective side of life are taken not as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s REFLEXIVE side. > The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the relation of objective activity and "communication". In the same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, any other, psychology. > ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????, ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. > The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable place for introducing such fundamental concepts, therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large English text https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS and read it to the end :-). > ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? ???????????? > ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? ??????????? ???????? https://www.avramus.com/app/download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 . > Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, touching on the most fundamental categories. But before proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica aside) :-) > Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, based on the general principles accepted in its framework and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a common, unifying conception are usually considered the theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the interpretation of these concepts. > For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is possible to consider both objective activity and communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? > I am convinced that without answering these and similar fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry and without answering them in the most general form, we are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, based on which we can practically solve socially significant problems, let us say, create a consistently democratic education system, we draw everyone to the interesting only for us theoretical verbiage about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between Vygotsky and Leontiev. > Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too to reflect on how to help find the path to education and culture for the children of poor migrants from Central Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > > Agitprop >? ? ? ? ? ? ? sticks >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? in my teeth too, > and I?d rather >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? compose >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? romances for you - > more profit in it >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? and more charm. > But I >? ? ? ? subdued >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? myself, >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? setting my heel > on the throat >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of my own song. >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Vladimir Mayakovski > > ? ??? >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????? ?????, > ? ??? ?? >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????? ?? ??? ? > ???????? ??? >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????. > ?? ? >? ? ? ? ???? >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????, >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????????? > ?? ????? >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????? ?????. >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? ?????????? > > > Among other things, such an over and over again forced return to the very foundation makes it difficult to understand even these very basics, for it forces us to return to the most abstract level all the time, literally stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract to the concrete. > Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions about how to understand the principle of interaction as such and about the relationship of object oriented activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed answers to these questions have been formulated by me in my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? ????????????. Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is available in English. It was even sent in published in English international journal... but for some strange reason was not published then or later. > So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, especially since I can answer by quoting my old text https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS. > But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" is also an interaction, but that is its highest, essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense that one can not in principle separate out its active and passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in the process of positing of an object one side is active, subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There are many interesting differences between them, but let us return to this somehow later. > In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation work of 1988: > ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant leaves (with his telescope). > That is to say that living, active or predmet relation as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital activity. > Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into contact with its living subjectivity. To put it differently, we can find not the slightest trace of predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive relation.? > Now about the object oriented activity and communication, and it does not matter whether in the verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's "addressing" to another person. > Which of these two categories should be considered primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and remains the central problem of theoretical psychology associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and Ilyenkov. > To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want to build scientific psychology in accordance with the famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers believed that the method of ascent, the method of "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one thing - either activity or communication. And at first glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations.. " > And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely scientific psychology consisted only in the need to reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely difficult situation, because the classics left us with different meanings on this topic and with which of them it is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, and with which in the second, it would still have to be solved by ourselves. > > So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas "Leningraders" were for "communication". > Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a literal reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something rather indecent. > > The end of the discussion between supporters of "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of Leontief's psychology department was appointed a well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in the ideological department of the Central Committee of CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed? supporters of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE could not reverse the situation too. > > Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to "communication" and "activity." > If we want to make our choice of the initial category, without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will choose the one of the two categories from which one can derive the entire diversity of human life, including another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that such an initial category can only be object-oriented activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the object oriented activity, which is an attribute property of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we will never get life or object oriented activity even with the greatest diligence. > > And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and the entire affective sphere associated with it is first generated by objective activity at the most basic level, in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. > And, finally, it demonstrates how the external reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, together and practically producing their own lives, assumes a specifically human character, being a reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. > > We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" communication and the affective side of life are taken not as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s REFLEXIVE side. > > The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the relation of objective activity and "communication". In the same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, any other, psychology. > The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable place for introducing such fundamental concepts, therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large English text https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS and read it to the end :-). > > The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? ???????????? > > Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short English one https://www.avramus.com/app/download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. > > Sasha > > > From alexander.surmava@yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 13:02:32 2017 From: alexander.surmava@yahoo.com (Alexander Surmava) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 20:02:32 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Object oriented activity and communication References: <1382917260.2413725.1507924952793.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1382917260.2413725.1507924952793@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Andy! I am glad that our communication was resumed after many years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and files and found that the problem of "object oriented activity OR communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is serious and it deserves to return to it today. Last year I was close to being silent forever. Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my descendants :-). I will begin with honest recognition that I do not understand your question. What means the distinction between singular and plural number in your remark? Could you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the Leontiev's theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of reflexive activity" (that is the title of my dissertation work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's "Theory of Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, having understood the theoretic meaning of your claims to AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily understand the essence of your objections to me. In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I consider "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a particular empirical case of its manifestation. Therefore, object-oriented activity there can be only one. Just like Matter, Nature, or Substance. Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come across only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old philosophers and that only the numerous individual "atomic facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar positivism and empiricism. When we talk about a living subject, his very life is a single and continuous activity, and not a bouquet or a bundle of various activities. Human development is development and the regular change of its objects. But the activity itself always remains the same object-oriented activity, the same life. Termination of this activity would be tantamount to death. Therefore, activity is something that basically can only be in the singular :-) It is another matter that the activity of a developed multicellular organism, and even more so the activity of a person included in the system of relations with other people about the joint production of life, is something rather complicated. This ensemble of subactivities, in which, as in a good, improvising jazz band, there are subactivities that perform the main melody, and subactivities of the second plan ...All this will be explained in the most detailed way in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" in the chapters that can not be reached in our discussions, stuck on the very first pages, on the Spinozic solution of the psychophysical problem :-) I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. Best wishes Sasha - I'll ask Sasha a question. - - Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial - category can only be object-oriented activity" as it stands, - in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be that you - are translating it from a Russian statement that is correct. - Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in when I - say "every activity has an object."=C2=A0 But in your expression - above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and unless - you are a religious person is not something which can have a - specific object. All English translations of A N Leontyev - make this mistake which has caused no end of confusion among - English-speakers. - - Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," just as - you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." - - Andy From ablunden@mira.net Fri Oct 13 17:21:33 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 11:21:33 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiAgUmU6IE9iamVjdCBvcmllbnRlZCBhY3Rpdml0?= =?utf-8?q?y_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> The Progress Publishers English translation of "Activity and Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, material life of the material subject. In the narrower sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a unit of life, mediated by mental reflection, by an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the subject in the objective world. In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The Development of Mind" we have: Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an organism?s activity; the different activities that realise its diverse vital relations with the surrounding reality are essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively different] types of activity according to the difference in their objects. By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean simply "category." The second does the same, but in addition makes it evident that the plural does not refer to different activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the possibility of forming a true concept of activity altogether. With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is simply that "such an initial *category* can only be object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: > Dear Andy! > I am glad that our communication was resumed after many > years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and files > and found that the problem of "object oriented activity OR > communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before > our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is serious and > it deserves to return to it today. > Last year I was close to being silent forever. > Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed > this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the > opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my > theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my > descendants :-). > I will begin with honest recognition that I do not > understand your question. What means the distinction > between singular and plural number in your remark? Could > you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the > Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my > concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, > moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of > reflexive activity" (that is the title of my dissertation > work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's "Theory of > Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, > having understood the theoretic meaning of your claims to > AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily > understand the essence of your objections to me. > In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I > view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a > particular empirical case of its manifestation. Therefore, > object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just like > Matter, Nature, or Substance. > Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come across > only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its > innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the > conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old > philosophers and that only the numerous individual "atomic > facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really > exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar > positivism and empiricism. > However, all of this may not apply to your position ... > I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. > Best wishes > Sasha > > > > ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden > ?????(?): > > > I'll ask Sasha a question. > > Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial > category can only be object-oriented activity" as it stands, > in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be that you > are translating it from a Russian statement that is correct. > Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in when I > say "every activity has an object." But in your expression > above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and unless > you are a religious person is not something which can have a > specific object. All English translations of A N Leontyev > make this mistake which has caused no end of confusion among > English-speakers. > > Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," just as > you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > Dear Sasha, all, > > > > > > thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding > response. I think you are right in your assertion that we > are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of > CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. However, one > can see in the lack of response by other members?? that > not everyone has the privilege of the time it requires to > go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing > that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce and I > hope it is/will be appreciated as such. > > > > > > If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I quote > from your response: > > > > > > "If we want to make our choice of the initial category, > without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us > as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will > choose the one of the two categories from which one can > derive the entire diversity of human life, including > another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that > such an initial category can only be object-oriented > activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the > latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from > communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such > spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or > object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" > > > > > > If we stay within the boundaries of the framework > according to which we are looking of the most original > germ cell, the one from which all others can be > developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I > think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree on that. > > > > > > But ??once we are back to the development of a concrete > Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact that, for > any child to participate in human forms of object-oriented > activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented > activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular > organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into those > forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category > devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with > the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you describe, is > this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, or is > it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? > > > > > > As moderator, I should stop there and let others answer > (which I hope some do). > > > > As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: > > > > > > Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in > ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of teaching > deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this > is only possible through *involvement* in collective > activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary > over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is > only possible in and through object-oriented activity). > But then, is not the teaching, the instructional aspect of > the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to > this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this > object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all > those attributes that you just called 'spiritually > uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such > activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get > collective activity without them? On this, and precisely > in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of Man", > Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in that > case that communication is included in activity and is its > essential component: without relation to another > person(s), activity is impossible' (144). Although I not > always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I can't > see how he can be wrong. > > > > > > So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of > reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the > category of object-oriented activity, is most primary. Let > me also note that ?there are other authors who have > developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you > discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on > French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom > affectivity is the concrete 'essence of auto-affection' ( > https://www.amazon.com/Incarnation-Philosophy-Studies-Phenomenology-Existential/dp/0810131269 > ) > > > > > > As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I wonder > whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity > and communication. Is not the distinction just an artefact > of a partial understanding of what it means activity and > what it means communicating. I still feel that > communication, in the sense of addressivity that Mikhailov > describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for > semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity > precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't > get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps > naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication > that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in > the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I > don't see how any practical activity can have any sense > (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. > Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are > talking about; one machines could perform on their own > without consciousness. ? > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Alexander Surmava > > > Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > ; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo > Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole > > Subject: Object oriented activity and communication > > > > Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > > The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, > touching on the most fundamental categories. But before > proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica > aside) :-) > > Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is > conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, > based on the general principles accepted in its framework > and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a > common, unifying conception are usually considered the > theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. > Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions > reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the > interpretation of these concepts. > > For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle > of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible > with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is > possible to consider both objective activity and > communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe > for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to > these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? > > I am convinced that without answering these and similar > fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry > and without answering them in the most general form, we > are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this > leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, > returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical > grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that > instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, > based on which we can practically solve socially > significant problems, let us say, create a consistently > democratic education system, we draw everyone to the > interesting only for us theoretical > verbiage > about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical > problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between > Vygotsky and Leontiev. > > Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too > to reflect on how to help find the path to education and > culture for the children of poor migrants from Central > Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > > > > Agitprop > > sticks > > in my teeth too, > > and I?d rather > > compose > > romances for you - > > more profit in it > > and more charm. > > But I > > subdued > > myself, > > setting my heel > > on the throat > > of my own song. > > Vladimir Mayakovski > > > > ? ??? > > ???????? > > ? ????? ?????, > > ? ??? ?? > > ???????? > > ??????? ?? ??? ? > > ???????? ??? > > ? ??????????. > > ?? ? > > ???? > > ??????, > > ????????? > > ?? ????? > > ??????????? ?????. > > ???????? ?????????? > > > > > > Among other things, such an over and over again forced > return to the very foundation makes it difficult to > understand even these very basics, for it forces us to > return to the most abstract level all the time, literally > stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract > to the concrete. > > Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions > about how to understand the principle of interaction as > such and about the relationship of object oriented > activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer > them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed > answers to these questions have been formulated by me in > my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF > LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian > ???????? ?????? ???????????? > ????????????. > Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the > principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is > available in English. It was even sent in published in > English international journal... but for some strange > reason was not published then or later. > > So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, > especially since I can answer by quoting my old text > https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS. > > But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to > repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction > of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case > be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two > ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach > should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my > opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should > not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious > that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the > type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the > mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object > oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing > with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic > of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? > ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the > terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" > is also an interaction, but that is its highest, > essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism > type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense > that one can not in principle separate out its active and > passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in > the process of positing of an object one side is active, > subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There > are many interesting differences between them, but let us > return to this somehow later. > > In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation > work of 1988: > > ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation > can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two > objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken > abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is > neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It > receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to > spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) > ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? > imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant > leaves (with his telescope). > > That is to say that living, active or predmet relation > as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously > acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital activity. > > Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, > or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not > spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. > Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not > determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with > accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. > Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not > just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be > conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism > itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing > indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into > contact with its living subjectivity. To put it > differently, we can find not the slightest trace of > predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive relation.? > > Now about the object oriented activity and > communication, and it does not matter whether in the > verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's > "addressing" to another person. > > Which of these two categories should be considered > primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to > discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness > (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and > remains the central problem of theoretical psychology > associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and Ilyenkov. > > To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want > to build scientific psychology in accordance with the > famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the > concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers > believed that the method of ascent, the method of > "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to > ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical > discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one > thing - either activity or communication. And at first > glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a > Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course > sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic > coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human > essence is no abstraction inherent in each single > individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the > social relations.. " > > And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's > view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely > scientific psychology consisted only in the need to > reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology > with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then > the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely > difficult situation, because the classics left us with > different meanings on this topic and with which of them it > is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, > and with which in the second, it would still have to be > solved by ourselves. > > So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this > issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A > group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was AN > Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly > belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented > activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second > and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of > Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was inclined to > formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, > "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" > were for communication. > > Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our > reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal > reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our > current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a > direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the > classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something > rather indecent. > > The end of the discussion between supporters of > "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also > characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, > convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing > the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was > dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was > expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of > director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of > Leontief's psychology department was appointed a > well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader > Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in > the ideological department of the Central Committee of > CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific > "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in > Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the > Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters > of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's > short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE > could not reverse the situation too. > > Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to > "communication" and "activity." > > If we want to make our choice of the initial category, > without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us > as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will > choose the one of the two categories from which one can > derive the entire diversity of human life, including > another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that > such an initial category can only be object-oriented > activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the > latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from > communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such > spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or > object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. > > And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact > realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive > Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and > the entire affective sphere associated with it is first > generated by objective activity at the most basic level, > in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic > of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course > of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. > And, finally, it demonstrates how the external > reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, > together and practically producing their own lives, > assumes a specifically human character, being a > reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. > > We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" > communication and the affective side of life are taken not > as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of > which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as > necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s > REFLEXIVE side. > > The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my > diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a > Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the > relation of objective activity and "communication". In the > same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, > the active relation of the subject to the object and to > itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, > indeed, any other, psychology. > > ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????, > ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, > ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, > ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? > https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS > ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. > > The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable > place for introducing such fundamental concepts, > therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the > notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large > English text > https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS > and read it to the end :-). > > ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? > ???????????? > > ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? > ??????????? ???????? > https://www.avramus.com/app/download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 > . > > Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > > The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, > touching on the most fundamental categories. But before > proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica > aside) :-) > > Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is > conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, > based on the general principles accepted in its framework > and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a > common, unifying conception are usually considered the > theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. > Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions > reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the > interpretation of these concepts. > > For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle > of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible > with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is > possible to consider both objective activity and > communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe > for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to > these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? > > I am convinced that without answering these and similar > fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry > and without answering them in the most general form, we > are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this > leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, > returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical > grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that > instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, > based on which we can practically solve socially > significant problems, let us say, create a consistently > democratic education system, we draw everyone to the > interesting only for us theoretical > verbiage > about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical > problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between > Vygotsky and Leontiev. > > Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too > to reflect on how to help find the path to education and > culture for the children of poor migrants from Central > Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > > > > Agitprop > > sticks > > in my teeth too, > > and I?d rather > > compose > > romances for you - > > more profit in it > > and more charm. > > But I > > subdued > > myself, > > setting my heel > > on the throat > > of my own song. > > Vladimir Mayakovski > > > > ? ??? > > ???????? > > ? ????? ?????, > > ? ??? ?? > > ???????? > > ??????? ?? ??? ? > > ???????? ??? > > ? ??????????. > > ?? ? > > ???? > > ??????, > > ????????? > > ?? ????? > > ??????????? ?????. > > ???????? ?????????? > > > > > > Among other things, such an over and over again forced > return to the very foundation makes it difficult to > understand even these very basics, for it forces us to > return to the most abstract level all the time, literally > stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract > to the concrete. > > Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions > about how to understand the principle of interaction as > such and about the relationship of object oriented > activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer > them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed > answers to these questions have been formulated by me in > my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF > LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian > ???????? ?????? ???????????? > ????????????. > Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the > principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is > available in English. It was even sent in published in > English international journal... but for some strange > reason was not published then or later. > > So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, > especially since I can answer by quoting my old text > https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS. > > But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to > repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction > of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case > be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two > ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach > should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my > opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should > not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious > that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the > type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the > mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object > oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing > with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic > of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? > ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the > terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" > is also an interaction, but that is its highest, > essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism > type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense > that one can not in principle separate out its active and > passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in > the process of positing of an object one side is active, > subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There > are many interesting differences between them, but let us > return to this somehow later. > > In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation > work of 1988: > > ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation > can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two > objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken > abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is > neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It > receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to > spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) > ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? > imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant > leaves (with his telescope). > > That is to say that living, active or predmet relation > as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously > acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital activity. > > Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, > or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not > spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. > Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not > determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with > accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. > Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not > just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be > conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism > itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing > indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into > contact with its living subjectivity. To put it > differently, we can find not the slightest trace of > predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive relation.? > > Now about the object oriented activity and > communication, and it does not matter whether in the > verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's > "addressing" to another person. > > Which of these two categories should be considered > primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to > discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness > (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and > remains the central problem of theoretical psychology > associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and Ilyenkov. > > To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want > to build scientific psychology in accordance with the > famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the > concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers > believed that the method of ascent, the method of > "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to > ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical > discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one > thing - either activity or communication. And at first > glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a > Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course > sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic > coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human > essence is no abstraction inherent in each single > individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the > social relations.. " > > And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's > view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely > scientific psychology consisted only in the need to > reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology > with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then > the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely > difficult situation, because the classics left us with > different meanings on this topic and with which of them it > is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, > and with which in the second, it would still have to be > solved by ourselves. > > > > So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this > issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A > group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was > Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly > belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented > activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second > and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas > a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was > inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other > words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas > "Leningraders" were for "communication". > > Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our > reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a literal > reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our > current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a > direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the > classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something > rather indecent. > > > > The end of the discussion between supporters of > "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also > characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, > convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing > the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was > dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was > expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of > director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of > Leontief's psychology department was appointed a > well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader > Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in > the ideological department of the Central Committee of > CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific > "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in > Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the > Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters > of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's > short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE > could not reverse the situation too. > > > > Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to > "communication" and "activity." > > If we want to make our choice of the initial category, > without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us > as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will > choose the one of the two categories from which one can > derive the entire diversity of human life, including > another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that > such an initial category can only be object-oriented > activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the > object oriented activity, which is an attribute property > of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, > empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we > will never get life or object oriented activity even with > the greatest diligence. > > > > And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact > realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive > Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and > the entire affective sphere associated with it is first > generated by objective activity at the most basic level, > in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic > of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course > of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. > > And, finally, it demonstrates how the external > reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, > together and practically producing their own lives, > assumes a specifically human character, being a > reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. > > > > We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" > communication and the affective side of life are taken not > as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of > which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as > necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s > REFLEXIVE side. > > > > The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my diploma > thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist > theoretical solution to the question of the relation of > objective activity and "communication". In the same time, > reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active > relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is > the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, > any other, psychology. > > The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable > place for introducing such fundamental concepts, > therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the > notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large > English text > https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS > and read it to the end :-). > > > > The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? > ???????????? > > > > Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short > English one > https://www.avramus.com/app/download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. > > > > Sasha > > > > > > > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Fri Oct 13 17:36:26 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 17:36:26 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> Message-ID: Thanks for being so concrete, Andy. Could someone post the Russian text next to the English so that it is possible to compare it with the translation? I spent several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally defeated me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra rubles in my pocket. Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us a "true" translation. mike On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > The Progress Publishers English translation of "Activity and > Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of > Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: > > Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, > material life of the material subject. In the narrower > sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a unit of > life, mediated by mental reflection, by > an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the > subject in the objective world. > > In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The > Development of Mind" we have: > > Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an > organism?s activity; the different activities that realise > its diverse vital relations with the surrounding reality are > essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore > differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively > different] types of activity according to the difference in > their objects. > > By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses > "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has > been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for > English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean simply > "category." The second does the same, but in addition makes > it evident that the plural does not refer to different > activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the > possibility of forming a true concept of activity altogether. > > With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is > simply that "such an initial *category* can only be > object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing > that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, > even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: > > Dear Andy! > > I am glad that our communication was resumed after many > > years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and files > > and found that the problem of "object oriented activity OR > > communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before > > our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is serious and > > it deserves to return to it today. > > Last year I was close to being silent forever. > > Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed > > this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the > > opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my > > theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my > > descendants :-). > > I will begin with honest recognition that I do not > > understand your question. What means the distinction > > between singular and plural number in your remark? Could > > you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the > > Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my > > concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, > > moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of > > reflexive activity" (that is the title of my dissertation > > work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's "Theory of > > Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, > > having understood the theoretic meaning of your claims to > > AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily > > understand the essence of your objections to me. > > In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I > > view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a > > particular empirical case of its manifestation. Therefore, > > object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just like > > Matter, Nature, or Substance. > > Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come across > > only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its > > innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the > > conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old > > philosophers and that only the numerous individual "atomic > > facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really > > exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar > > positivism and empiricism. > > However, all of this may not apply to your position ... > > I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. > > Best wishes > > Sasha > > > > > > > > ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden > > ?????(?): > > > > > > I'll ask Sasha a question. > > > > Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial > > category can only be object-oriented activity" as it stands, > > in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be that you > > are translating it from a Russian statement that is correct. > > Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in when I > > say "every activity has an object." But in your expression > > above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and unless > > you are a religious person is not something which can have a > > specific object. All English translations of A N Leontyev > > make this mistake which has caused no end of confusion among > > English-speakers. > > > > Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," just as > > you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." > > > > Andy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > > Dear Sasha, all, > > > > > > > > > thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding > > response. I think you are right in your assertion that we > > are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of > > CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. However, one > > can see in the lack of response by other members?? that > > not everyone has the privilege of the time it requires to > > go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing > > that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce and I > > hope it is/will be appreciated as such. > > > > > > > > > If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I quote > > from your response: > > > > > > > > > "If we want to make our choice of the initial category, > > without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us > > as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will > > choose the one of the two categories from which one can > > derive the entire diversity of human life, including > > another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that > > such an initial category can only be object-oriented > > activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the > > latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from > > communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such > > spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or > > object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" > > > > > > > > > If we stay within the boundaries of the framework > > according to which we are looking of the most original > > germ cell, the one from which all others can be > > developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I > > think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree on that. > > > > > > > > > But ??once we are back to the development of a concrete > > Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact that, for > > any child to participate in human forms of object-oriented > > activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented > > activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular > > organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into those > > forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category > > devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with > > the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you describe, is > > this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, or is > > it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? > > > > > > > > > As moderator, I should stop there and let others answer > > (which I hope some do). > > > > > > As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: > > > > > > > > > Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in > > ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of teaching > > deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this > > is only possible through *involvement* in collective > > activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary > > over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is > > only possible in and through object-oriented activity). > > But then, is not the teaching, the instructional aspect of > > the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to > > this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this > > object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all > > those attributes that you just called 'spiritually > > uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such > > activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get > > collective activity without them? On this, and precisely > > in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of Man", > > Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in that > > case that communication is included in activity and is its > > essential component: without relation to another > > person(s), activity is impossible' (144). Although I not > > always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I can't > > see how he can be wrong. > > > > > > > > > So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of > > reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the > > category of object-oriented activity, is most primary. Let > > me also note that ?there are other authors who have > > developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you > > discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on > > French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom > > affectivity is the concrete 'essence of auto-affection' ( > > https://www.amazon.com/Incarnation-Philosophy-Studies-Phenomenology- > Existential/dp/0810131269 > > ) > > > > > > > > > As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I wonder > > whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity > > and communication. Is not the distinction just an artefact > > of a partial understanding of what it means activity and > > what it means communicating. I still feel that > > communication, in the sense of addressivity that Mikhailov > > describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for > > semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity > > precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't > > get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps > > naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication > > that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in > > the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I > > don't see how any practical activity can have any sense > > (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. > > Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are > > talking about; one machines could perform on their own > > without consciousness. ? > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Alexander Surmava > > > > > Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > ; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo > > Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole > > > Subject: Object oriented activity and communication > > > > > > Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > > > The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, > > touching on the most fundamental categories. But before > > proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica > > aside) :-) > > > Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is > > conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, > > based on the general principles accepted in its framework > > and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a > > common, unifying conception are usually considered the > > theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. > > Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions > > reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the > > interpretation of these concepts. > > > For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle > > of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible > > with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is > > possible to consider both objective activity and > > communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe > > for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to > > these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? > > > I am convinced that without answering these and similar > > fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry > > and without answering them in the most general form, we > > are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this > > leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, > > returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical > > grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that > > instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, > > based on which we can practically solve socially > > significant problems, let us say, create a consistently > > democratic education system, we draw everyone to the > > interesting only for us theoretical > > verbiage 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB%EE%E2%E8%E5> > > about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical > > problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between > > Vygotsky and Leontiev. > > > Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too > > to reflect on how to help find the path to education and > > culture for the children of poor migrants from Central > > Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > > > > > > Agitprop > > > sticks > > > in my teeth too, > > > and I?d rather > > > compose > > > romances for you - > > > more profit in it > > > and more charm. > > > But I > > > subdued > > > myself, > > > setting my heel > > > on the throat > > > of my own song. > > > Vladimir Mayakovski > > > > > > ? ??? > > > ???????? > > > ? ????? ?????, > > > ? ??? ?? > > > ???????? > > > ??????? ?? ??? ? > > > ???????? ??? > > > ? ??????????. > > > ?? ? > > > ???? > > > ??????, > > > ????????? > > > ?? ????? > > > ??????????? ?????. > > > ???????? ?????????? > > > > > > > > > Among other things, such an over and over again forced > > return to the very foundation makes it difficult to > > understand even these very basics, for it forces us to > > return to the most abstract level all the time, literally > > stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract > > to the concrete. > > > Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions > > about how to understand the principle of interaction as > > such and about the relationship of object oriented > > activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer > > them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed > > answers to these questions have been formulated by me in > > my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF > > LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian > > ???????? ?????? ???????????? > > ???????????? OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8>. > > Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the > > principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is > > available in English. It was even sent in published in > > English international journal... but for some strange > > reason was not published then or later. > > > So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, > > especially since I can answer by quoting my old text > > https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS. > > > But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to > > repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction > > of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case > > be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two > > ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach > > should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my > > opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should > > not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious > > that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the > > type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the > > mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object > > oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing > > with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic > > of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? > > ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the > > terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" > > is also an interaction, but that is its highest, > > essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism > > type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense > > that one can not in principle separate out its active and > > passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in > > the process of positing of an object one side is active, > > subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There > > are many interesting differences between them, but let us > > return to this somehow later. > > > In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation > > work of 1988: > > > ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation > > can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two > > objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken > > abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is > > neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It > > receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to > > spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) > > ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? > > imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant > > leaves (with his telescope). > > > That is to say that living, active or predmet relation > > as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously > > acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital activity. > > > Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, > > or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not > > spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. > > Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not > > determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with > > accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. > > Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not > > just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be > > conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism > > itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing > > indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into > > contact with its living subjectivity. To put it > > differently, we can find not the slightest trace of > > predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive relation.? > > > Now about the object oriented activity and > > communication, and it does not matter whether in the > > verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's > > "addressing" to another person. > > > Which of these two categories should be considered > > primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to > > discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness > > (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and > > remains the central problem of theoretical psychology > > associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and Ilyenkov. > > > To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want > > to build scientific psychology in accordance with the > > famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the > > concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers > > believed that the method of ascent, the method of > > "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to > > ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical > > discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one > > thing - either activity or communication. And at first > > glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a > > Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course > > sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic > > coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human > > essence is no abstraction inherent in each single > > individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the > > social relations.. " > > > And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's > > view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely > > scientific psychology consisted only in the need to > > reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology > > with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then > > the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely > > difficult situation, because the classics left us with > > different meanings on this topic and with which of them it > > is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, > > and with which in the second, it would still have to be > > solved by ourselves. > > > So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this > > issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A > > group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was AN > > Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly > > belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented > > activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second > > and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of > > Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was inclined to > > formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, > > "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" > > were for communication. > > > Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our > > reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal > > reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our > > current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a > > direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the > > classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something > > rather indecent. > > > The end of the discussion between supporters of > > "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also > > characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, > > convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing > > the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was > > dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was > > expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of > > director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of > > Leontief's psychology department was appointed a > > well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader > > Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in > > the ideological department of the Central Committee of > > CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific > > "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in > > Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the > > Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters > > of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's > > short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE > > could not reverse the situation too. > > > Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to > > "communication" and "activity." > > > If we want to make our choice of the initial category, > > without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us > > as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will > > choose the one of the two categories from which one can > > derive the entire diversity of human life, including > > another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that > > such an initial category can only be object-oriented > > activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the > > latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from > > communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such > > spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or > > object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. > > > And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact > > realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive > > Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and > > the entire affective sphere associated with it is first > > generated by objective activity at the most basic level, > > in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic > > of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course > > of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. > > And, finally, it demonstrates how the external > > reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, > > together and practically producing their own lives, > > assumes a specifically human character, being a > > reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. > > > We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" > > communication and the affective side of life are taken not > > as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of > > which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as > > necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s > > REFLEXIVE side. > > > The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my > > diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a > > Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the > > relation of objective activity and "communication". In the > > same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, > > the active relation of the subject to the object and to > > itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, > > indeed, any other, psychology. > > > ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????, > > ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, > > ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, > > ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? > > https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS > > ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. > > > The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable > > place for introducing such fundamental concepts, > > therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the > > notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large > > English text > > https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS > > and read it to the end :-). > > > ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN > > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? > > ???????????? OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> > > > ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? > > ??????????? ???????? > > https://www.avramus.com/app/download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% > BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% > D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% > BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 > > . > > > Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > > > The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, > > touching on the most fundamental categories. But before > > proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica > > aside) :-) > > > Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is > > conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, > > based on the general principles accepted in its framework > > and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a > > common, unifying conception are usually considered the > > theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. > > Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions > > reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the > > interpretation of these concepts. > > > For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle > > of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible > > with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is > > possible to consider both objective activity and > > communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe > > for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to > > these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? > > > I am convinced that without answering these and similar > > fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry > > and without answering them in the most general form, we > > are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this > > leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, > > returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical > > grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that > > instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, > > based on which we can practically solve socially > > significant problems, let us say, create a consistently > > democratic education system, we draw everyone to the > > interesting only for us theoretical > > verbiage 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB%EE%E2%E8%E5> > > about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical > > problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between > > Vygotsky and Leontiev. > > > Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too > > to reflect on how to help find the path to education and > > culture for the children of poor migrants from Central > > Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > > > > > > Agitprop > > > sticks > > > in my teeth too, > > > and I?d rather > > > compose > > > romances for you - > > > more profit in it > > > and more charm. > > > But I > > > subdued > > > myself, > > > setting my heel > > > on the throat > > > of my own song. > > > Vladimir Mayakovski > > > > > > ? ??? > > > ???????? > > > ? ????? ?????, > > > ? ??? ?? > > > ???????? > > > ??????? ?? ??? ? > > > ???????? ??? > > > ? ??????????. > > > ?? ? > > > ???? > > > ??????, > > > ????????? > > > ?? ????? > > > ??????????? ?????. > > > ???????? ?????????? > > > > > > > > > Among other things, such an over and over again forced > > return to the very foundation makes it difficult to > > understand even these very basics, for it forces us to > > return to the most abstract level all the time, literally > > stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract > > to the concrete. > > > Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions > > about how to understand the principle of interaction as > > such and about the relationship of object oriented > > activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer > > them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed > > answers to these questions have been formulated by me in > > my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF > > LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian > > ???????? ?????? ???????????? > > ???????????? OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8>. > > Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the > > principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is > > available in English. It was even sent in published in > > English international journal... but for some strange > > reason was not published then or later. > > > So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, > > especially since I can answer by quoting my old text > > https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS. > > > But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to > > repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction > > of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case > > be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two > > ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach > > should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my > > opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should > > not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious > > that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the > > type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the > > mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object > > oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing > > with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic > > of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? > > ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the > > terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" > > is also an interaction, but that is its highest, > > essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism > > type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense > > that one can not in principle separate out its active and > > passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in > > the process of positing of an object one side is active, > > subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There > > are many interesting differences between them, but let us > > return to this somehow later. > > > In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation > > work of 1988: > > > ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation > > can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two > > objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken > > abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is > > neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It > > receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to > > spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) > > ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? > > imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant > > leaves (with his telescope). > > > That is to say that living, active or predmet relation > > as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously > > acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital activity. > > > Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, > > or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not > > spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. > > Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not > > determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with > > accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. > > Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not > > just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be > > conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism > > itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing > > indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into > > contact with its living subjectivity. To put it > > differently, we can find not the slightest trace of > > predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive relation.? > > > Now about the object oriented activity and > > communication, and it does not matter whether in the > > verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's > > "addressing" to another person. > > > Which of these two categories should be considered > > primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to > > discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness > > (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and > > remains the central problem of theoretical psychology > > associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and Ilyenkov. > > > To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want > > to build scientific psychology in accordance with the > > famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the > > concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers > > believed that the method of ascent, the method of > > "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to > > ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical > > discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one > > thing - either activity or communication. And at first > > glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a > > Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course > > sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic > > coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human > > essence is no abstraction inherent in each single > > individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the > > social relations.. " > > > And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's > > view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely > > scientific psychology consisted only in the need to > > reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology > > with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then > > the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely > > difficult situation, because the classics left us with > > different meanings on this topic and with which of them it > > is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, > > and with which in the second, it would still have to be > > solved by ourselves. > > > > > > So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this > > issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A > > group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was > > Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly > > belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented > > activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second > > and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas > > a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was > > inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other > > words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas > > "Leningraders" were for "communication". > > > Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our > > reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a literal > > reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our > > current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a > > direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the > > classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something > > rather indecent. > > > > > > The end of the discussion between supporters of > > "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also > > characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, > > convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing > > the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was > > dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was > > expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of > > director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of > > Leontief's psychology department was appointed a > > well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader > > Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in > > the ideological department of the Central Committee of > > CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific > > "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in > > Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the > > Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters > > of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's > > short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE > > could not reverse the situation too. > > > > > > Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to > > "communication" and "activity." > > > If we want to make our choice of the initial category, > > without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us > > as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will > > choose the one of the two categories from which one can > > derive the entire diversity of human life, including > > another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that > > such an initial category can only be object-oriented > > activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the > > object oriented activity, which is an attribute property > > of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, > > empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we > > will never get life or object oriented activity even with > > the greatest diligence. > > > > > > And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact > > realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive > > Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and > > the entire affective sphere associated with it is first > > generated by objective activity at the most basic level, > > in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic > > of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course > > of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. > > > And, finally, it demonstrates how the external > > reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, > > together and practically producing their own lives, > > assumes a specifically human character, being a > > reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. > > > > > > We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" > > communication and the affective side of life are taken not > > as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of > > which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as > > necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s > > REFLEXIVE side. > > > > > > The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my diploma > > thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist > > theoretical solution to the question of the relation of > > objective activity and "communication". In the same time, > > reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active > > relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is > > the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, > > any other, psychology. > > > The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable > > place for introducing such fundamental concepts, > > therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the > > notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large > > English text > > https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS > > and read it to the end :-). > > > > > > The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN > > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? > > ???????????? OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> > > > > > > Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short > > English one > > https://www.avramus.com/app/download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% > BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% > D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% > BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. > > > > > > Sasha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From ablunden@mira.net Fri Oct 13 17:53:35 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 11:53:35 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> Message-ID: This is the opening paragraph of ch. 3, s. 2 of????????????. ????????. ???????? ???????????? ???? ????????, ?? ?????????? ??????? ????? ?????????, ????????????? ????????. ? ????? ????? ??????, ?.?. ?? ??????????????? ??????, ??? ??????? ?????, ?????????????? ??????????? ??????????, ???????? ??????? ???????? ??????? ? ???, ??? ??? ??????????? ???????? ? ?????????? ????. ????? ???????, ???????????? ? ??? ?? ??????? ? ?? ???????????? ???????, ? ???????, ??????? ????????, ???? ?????????? ???????? ? ???????????, ???? ????????. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 14/10/2017 11:36 AM, mike cole wrote: > Thanks for being so concrete, Andy. > Could someone post the Russian text next to the English so > that it is possible to compare it with the translation? I > spent several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development > of Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally > defeated me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra > rubles in my pocket. > > Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us a > "true" translation. > > mike > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > The Progress Publishers English translation of > "Activity and > Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of > Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: > > Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, > material life of the material subject. In the narrower > sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a > unit of > life, mediated by mental reflection, by > an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the > subject in the objective world. > > In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The > Development of Mind" we have: > > Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an > organism?s activity; the different activities that realise > its diverse vital relations with the surrounding > reality are > essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore > differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively > different] types of activity according to the > difference in > their objects. > > By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses > "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has > been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for > English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean > simply > "category." The second does the same, but in addition > makes > it evident that the plural does not refer to different > activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the > possibility of forming a true concept of activity > altogether. > > With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is > simply that "such an initial *category* can only be > object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing > that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, > even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: > > Dear Andy! > > I am glad that our communication was resumed after many > > years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and > files > > and found that the problem of "object oriented > activity OR > > communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before > > our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is > serious and > > it deserves to return to it today. > > Last year I was close to being silent forever. > > Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed > > this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the > > opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my > > theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my > > descendants :-). > > I will begin with honest recognition that I do not > > understand your question. What means the distinction > > between singular and plural number in your remark? Could > > you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the > > Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my > > concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, > > moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of > > reflexive activity" (that is the title of my > dissertation > > work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's > "Theory of > > Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, > > having understood the theoretic meaning of your > claims to > > AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily > > understand the essence of your objections to me. > > In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I > > view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a > > particular empirical case of its manifestation. > Therefore, > > object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just > like > > Matter, Nature, or Substance. > > Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come > across > > only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its > > innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the > > conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old > > philosophers and that only the numerous individual > "atomic > > facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really > > exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar > > positivism and empiricism. > > However, all of this may not apply to your position ... > > I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. > > Best wishes > > Sasha > > > > > > > > ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden > > > ?????(?): > > > > > > I'll ask Sasha a question. > > > > Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial > > category can only be object-oriented activity" as it > stands, > > in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be > that you > > are translating it from a Russian statement that is > correct. > > Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in > when I > > say "every activity has an object." But in your > expression > > above "activity" is not a word which has a plural > and unless > > you are a religious person is not something which > can have a > > specific object. All English translations of A N > Leontyev > > make this mistake which has caused no end of > confusion among > > English-speakers. > > > > Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," > just as > > you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." > > > > Andy > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > > Dear Sasha, all, > > > > > > > > > thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding > > response. I think you are right in your assertion > that we > > are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of > > CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. > However, one > > can see in the lack of response by other members?? that > > not everyone has the privilege of the time it > requires to > > go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing > > that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce > and I > > hope it is/will be appreciated as such. > > > > > > > > > If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I > quote > > from your response: > > > > > > > > > "If we want to make our choice of the initial > category, > > without looking back at the academic fashion, then > for us > > as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will > > choose the one of the two categories from which one can > > derive the entire diversity of human life, including > > another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that > > such an initial category can only be object-oriented > > activity, for it is easy to deduce communication > from the > > latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from > > communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such > > spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or > > object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" > > > > > > > > > If we stay within the boundaries of the framework > > according to which we are looking of the most original > > germ cell, the one from which all others can be > > developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I > > think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree > on that. > > > > > > > > > But ??once we are back to the development of a > concrete > > Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact > that, for > > any child to participate in human forms of > object-oriented > > activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented > > activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular > > organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into > those > > forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category > > devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with > > the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you > describe, is > > this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, > or is > > it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? > > > > > > > > > As moderator, I should stop there and let others > answer > > (which I hope some do). > > > > > > As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: > > > > > > > > > Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in > > ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of > teaching > > deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this > > is only possible through *involvement* in collective > > activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary > > over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is > > only possible in and through object-oriented activity). > > But then, is not the teaching, the instructional > aspect of > > the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to > > this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this > > object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all > > those attributes that you just called 'spiritually > > uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such > > activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get > > collective activity without them? On this, and precisely > > in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of > Man", > > Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in > that > > case that communication is included in activity and > is its > > essential component: without relation to another > > person(s), activity is impossible' (144). Although > I not > > always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I > can't > > see how he can be wrong. > > > > > > > > > So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of > > reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the > > category of object-oriented activity, is most > primary. Let > > me also note that ?there are other authors who have > > developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you > > discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on > > French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom > > affectivity is the concrete 'essence of > auto-affection' ( > > > https://www.amazon.com/Incarnation-Philosophy-Studies-Phenomenology-Existential/dp/0810131269 > > > ) > > > > > > > > > As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I > wonder > > whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity > > and communication. Is not the distinction just an > artefact > > of a partial understanding of what it means activity and > > what it means communicating. I still feel that > > communication, in the sense of addressivity that > Mikhailov > > describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for > > semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity > > precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't > > get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps > > naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication > > that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in > > the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I > > don't see how any practical activity can have any sense > > (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. > > Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are > > talking about; one machines could perform on their own > > without consciousness. ? > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Alexander Surmava > > > >> > > > Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > >; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo > > Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole > > > Subject: Object oriented activity and communication > > > > > > Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > > > The discussion really becomes more and more > interesting, > > touching on the most fundamental categories. But before > > proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? > (replica > > aside) :-) > > > Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is > > conducted in the context of a single theoretical > approach, > > based on the general principles accepted in its > framework > > and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a > > common, unifying conception are usually considered the > > theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. > > Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our > discussions > > reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the > > interpretation of these concepts. > > > For example, is semiotics compatible with the > principle > > of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism > compatible > > with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, > it is > > possible to consider both objective activity and > > communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe > > for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to > > these two principles something third, say - > "subjectness"? > > > I am convinced that without answering these and > similar > > fundamental questions at the very beginning of our > inquiry > > and without answering them in the most general form, we > > are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. > But this > > leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, > > returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical > > grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that > > instead of discussing a substantive psychological > theory, > > based on which we can practically solve socially > > significant problems, let us say, create a consistently > > democratic education system, we draw everyone to the > > interesting only for us theoretical > > > verbiage > > > about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical > > problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions > between > > Vygotsky and Leontiev. > > > Believe me, it would be much more interesting for > me too > > to reflect on how to help find the path to education and > > culture for the children of poor migrants from Central > > Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > > > > > > Agitprop > > > sticks > > > in my teeth too, > > > and I?d rather > > > compose > > > romances for you - > > > more profit in it > > > and more charm. > > > But I > > > subdued > > > myself, > > > setting my heel > > > on the throat > > > of my own song. > > > Vladimir Mayakovski > > > > > > ? ??? > > > ???????? > > > ? ????? ?????, > > > ? ??? ?? > > > ???????? > > > ??????? ?? ??? ? > > > ???????? ??? > > > ? ??????????. > > > ?? ? > > > ???? > > > ??????, > > > ????????? > > > ?? ????? > > > ??????????? ?????. > > > ???????? ?????????? > > > > > > > > > Among other things, such an over and over again forced > > return to the very foundation makes it difficult to > > understand even these very basics, for it forces us to > > return to the most abstract level all the time, > literally > > stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the > abstract > > to the concrete. > > > Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting > questions > > about how to understand the principle of interaction as > > such and about the relationship of object oriented > > activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer > > them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed > > answers to these questions have been formulated by me in > > my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF > > LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian > > ???????? ?????? ???????????? > > > ???????????? >. > > Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the > > principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is > > available in English. It was even sent in published in > > English international journal... but for some strange > > reason was not published then or later. > > > So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, > > especially since I can answer by quoting my old text > > > https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS > . > > > But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to > > repeat - I completely agree with you that the > interaction > > of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no > case > > be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two > > ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach > > should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my > > opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should > > not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious > > that such a logic of interaction is characteristic > of the > > type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the > > mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object > > oriented activity of a living organism, we are not > dealing > > with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the > logic > > of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? > > ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the > > terminology of German classics. In other words, > "positing" > > is also an interaction, but that is its highest, > > essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism > > type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense > > that one can not in principle separate out its > active and > > passive side, on the contrary, in organic > interaction, in > > the process of positing of an object one side is active, > > subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There > > are many interesting differences between them, but > let us > > return to this somehow later. > > > In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation > > work of 1988: > > > ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation > > can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two > > objects external to each other. For example, the sun > taken > > abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is > > neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It > > receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to > > spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) > > ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? > > imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant > > leaves (with his telescope). > > > That is to say that living, active or predmet relation > > as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously > > acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital > activity. > > > Something else again is a stimulating-reactive > relation, > > or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not > > spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. > > Secondly, it is not productive since the organism > does not > > determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with > > accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. > > Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not > > just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be > > conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the > organism > > itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing > > indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into > > contact with its living subjectivity. To put it > > differently, we can find not the slightest trace of > > predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive > relation.? > > > Now about the object oriented activity and > > communication, and it does not matter whether in the > > verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's > > "addressing" to another person. > > > Which of these two categories should be considered > > primary and universal, in which of them we have to > try to > > discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness > > (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has > been and > > remains the central problem of theoretical psychology > > associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and > Ilyenkov. > > > To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If > we want > > to build scientific psychology in accordance with the > > famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the > > concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers > > believed that the method of ascent, the method of > > "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to > > ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical > > discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to > choose one > > thing - either activity or communication. And at first > > glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a > > Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course > > sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic > > coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the > human > > essence is no abstraction inherent in each single > > individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the > > social relations.. " > > > And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's > > view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely > > scientific psychology consisted only in the need to > > reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical > psychology > > with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, > then > > the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely > > difficult situation, because the classics left us with > > different meanings on this topic and with which of > them it > > is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, > > and with which in the second, it would still have to be > > solved by ourselves. > > > So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this > > issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A > > group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader > was AN > > Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly > > belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented > > activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, > second > > and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a > group of > > Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was > inclined to > > formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, > > "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" > > were for communication. > > > Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our > > reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal > > reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our > > current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a > > direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the > > classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered > something > > rather indecent. > > > The end of the discussion between supporters of > > "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also > > characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, > > convincing the ideological authorities that, by > organizing > > the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was > > dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was > > expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of > > director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of > > Leontief's psychology department was appointed a > > well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader > > Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in > > the ideological department of the Central Committee of > > CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of > scientific > > "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in > > Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the > > Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters > > of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's > > short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE > > could not reverse the situation too. > > > Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to > > "communication" and "activity." > > > If we want to make our choice of the initial category, > > without looking back at the academic fashion, then > for us > > as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will > > choose the one of the two categories from which one can > > derive the entire diversity of human life, including > > another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that > > such an initial category can only be object-oriented > > activity, for it is easy to deduce communication > from the > > latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from > > communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such > > spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or > > object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. > > > And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but > a fact > > realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive > > Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and > > the entire affective sphere associated with it is first > > generated by objective activity at the most basic level, > > in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex > dialectic > > of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the > course > > of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. > > And, finally, it demonstrates how the external > > reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, > > together and practically producing their own lives, > > assumes a specifically human character, being a > > reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. > > > We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive > Activity" > > communication and the affective side of life are > taken not > > as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of > > which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as > > necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s > > REFLEXIVE side. > > > The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my > > diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a > > Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the > > relation of objective activity and "communication". > In the > > same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, > > the active relation of the subject to the object and to > > itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the > human, as, > > indeed, any other, psychology. > > > ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? > ????, > > ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, > > ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, > > ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? > > > https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS > > > ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. > > > The format of the Internet chat is not the most > suitable > > place for introducing such fundamental concepts, > > therefore, those who want to understand the problem > of the > > notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large > > English text > > > https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS > > > and read it to the end :-). > > > ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND > HUMAN > > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? > ???????????? > > > ???????????? > > > > ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? > > ??????????? ???????? > > > https://www.avramus.com/app/download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 > > > . > > > Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > > > The discussion really becomes more and more > interesting, > > touching on the most fundamental categories. But before > > proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? > (replica > > aside) :-) > > > Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is > > conducted in the context of a single theoretical > approach, > > based on the general principles accepted in its > framework > > and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a > > common, unifying conception are usually considered the > > theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. > > Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our > discussions > > reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the > > interpretation of these concepts. > > > For example, is semiotics compatible with the > principle > > of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism > compatible > > with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, > it is > > possible to consider both objective activity and > > communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe > > for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to > > these two principles something third, say - > "subjectness"? > > > I am convinced that without answering these and > similar > > fundamental questions at the very beginning of our > inquiry > > and without answering them in the most general form, we > > are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. > But this > > leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, > > returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical > > grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that > > instead of discussing a substantive psychological > theory, > > based on which we can practically solve socially > > significant problems, let us say, create a consistently > > democratic education system, we draw everyone to the > > interesting only for us theoretical > > > verbiage > > > about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical > > problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions > between > > Vygotsky and Leontiev. > > > Believe me, it would be much more interesting for > me too > > to reflect on how to help find the path to education and > > culture for the children of poor migrants from Central > > Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > > > > > > Agitprop > > > sticks > > > in my teeth too, > > > and I?d rather > > > compose > > > romances for you - > > > more profit in it > > > and more charm. > > > But I > > > subdued > > > myself, > > > setting my heel > > > on the throat > > > of my own song. > > > Vladimir Mayakovski > > > > > > ? ??? > > > ???????? > > > ? ????? ?????, > > > ? ??? ?? > > > ???????? > > > ??????? ?? ??? ? > > > ???????? ??? > > > ? ??????????. > > > ?? ? > > > ???? > > > ??????, > > > ????????? > > > ?? ????? > > > ??????????? ?????. > > > ???????? ?????????? > > > > > > > > > Among other things, such an over and over again forced > > return to the very foundation makes it difficult to > > understand even these very basics, for it forces us to > > return to the most abstract level all the time, > literally > > stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the > abstract > > to the concrete. > > > Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting > questions > > about how to understand the principle of interaction as > > such and about the relationship of object oriented > > activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer > > them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed > > answers to these questions have been formulated by me in > > my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF > > LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian > > ???????? ?????? ???????????? > > > ???????????? >. > > Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the > > principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is > > available in English. It was even sent in published in > > English international journal... but for some strange > > reason was not published then or later. > > > So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, > > especially since I can answer by quoting my old text > > > https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS > . > > > But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to > > repeat - I completely agree with you that the > interaction > > of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no > case > > be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two > > ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach > > should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my > > opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should > > not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious > > that such a logic of interaction is characteristic > of the > > type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the > > mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object > > oriented activity of a living organism, we are not > dealing > > with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the > logic > > of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? > > ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the > > terminology of German classics. In other words, > "positing" > > is also an interaction, but that is its highest, > > essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism > > type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense > > that one can not in principle separate out its > active and > > passive side, on the contrary, in organic > interaction, in > > the process of positing of an object one side is active, > > subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There > > are many interesting differences between them, but > let us > > return to this somehow later. > > > In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation > > work of 1988: > > > ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation > > can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two > > objects external to each other. For example, the sun > taken > > abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is > > neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It > > receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to > > spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) > > ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? > > imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant > > leaves (with his telescope). > > > That is to say that living, active or predmet relation > > as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously > > acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital > activity. > > > Something else again is a stimulating-reactive > relation, > > or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not > > spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. > > Secondly, it is not productive since the organism > does not > > determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with > > accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. > > Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not > > just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be > > conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the > organism > > itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing > > indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into > > contact with its living subjectivity. To put it > > differently, we can find not the slightest trace of > > predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive > relation.? > > > Now about the object oriented activity and > > communication, and it does not matter whether in the > > verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's > > "addressing" to another person. > > > Which of these two categories should be considered > > primary and universal, in which of them we have to > try to > > discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness > > (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has > been and > > remains the central problem of theoretical psychology > > associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and > Ilyenkov. > > > To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If > we want > > to build scientific psychology in accordance with the > > famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the > > concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers > > believed that the method of ascent, the method of > > "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to > > ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical > > discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to > choose one > > thing - either activity or communication. And at first > > glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a > > Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course > > sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic > > coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the > human > > essence is no abstraction inherent in each single > > individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the > > social relations.. " > > > And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's > > view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely > > scientific psychology consisted only in the need to > > reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical > psychology > > with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, > then > > the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely > > difficult situation, because the classics left us with > > different meanings on this topic and with which of > them it > > is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, > > and with which in the second, it would still have to be > > solved by ourselves. > > > > > > So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this > > issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A > > group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was > > Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly > > belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented > > activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, > second > > and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", > whereas > > a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was > > inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other > > words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas > > "Leningraders" were for "communication". > > > Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our > > reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a > literal > > reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our > > current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a > > direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the > > classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered > something > > rather indecent. > > > > > > The end of the discussion between supporters of > > "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also > > characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, > > convincing the ideological authorities that, by > organizing > > the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was > > dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was > > expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of > > director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of > > Leontief's psychology department was appointed a > > well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader > > Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in > > the ideological department of the Central Committee of > > CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of > scientific > > "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in > > Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the > > Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters > > of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's > > short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE > > could not reverse the situation too. > > > > > > Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to > > "communication" and "activity." > > > If we want to make our choice of the initial category, > > without looking back at the academic fashion, then > for us > > as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will > > choose the one of the two categories from which one can > > derive the entire diversity of human life, including > > another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that > > such an initial category can only be object-oriented > > activity, for it is easy to deduce communication > from the > > object oriented activity, which is an attribute property > > of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, > > empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we > > will never get life or object oriented activity even > with > > the greatest diligence. > > > > > > And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but > a fact > > realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive > > Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and > > the entire affective sphere associated with it is first > > generated by objective activity at the most basic level, > > in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex > dialectic > > of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the > course > > of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. > > > And, finally, it demonstrates how the external > > reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, > > together and practically producing their own lives, > > assumes a specifically human character, being a > > reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. > > > > > > We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive > Activity" > > communication and the affective side of life are > taken not > > as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of > > which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as > > necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s > > REFLEXIVE side. > > > > > > The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my > diploma > > thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist > > theoretical solution to the question of the relation of > > objective activity and "communication". In the same > time, > > reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active > > relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is > > the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, > > any other, psychology. > > > The format of the Internet chat is not the most > suitable > > place for introducing such fundamental concepts, > > therefore, those who want to understand the problem > of the > > notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large > > English text > > > https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS > > > and read it to the end :-). > > > > > > The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND > HUMAN > > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? > ???????????? > > > ???????????? > > > > > > > Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short > > English one > > > https://www.avramus.com/app/download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 > . > > > > > > Sasha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Fri Oct 13 19:17:12 2017 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 02:17:12 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> Message-ID: <625D941E-F734-490F-841C-3FA7E842300F@uniandes.edu.co> Activity is a molar, not an additive unit of life corporal, material subject. In a more narrow sense, those. at the psychological level, this is a unit of life, mediated by mental reflection, the real function which consists in the fact that it orientates the subject in objective world. In other words, the activity is not reaction and not a set of reactions, but a system that has structure, its internal transitions and transformations, its development. Martin > On Oct 13, 2017, at 7:53 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > This is the opening paragraph of ch. 3, s. 2 of????????????. > ????????. ???????? > > ???????????? ???? ????????, ?? ?????????? ??????? ????? > ?????????, ????????????? ????????. ? ????? ????? ??????, > ?.?. ?? ??????????????? ??????, ??? ??????? ?????, > ?????????????? ??????????? ??????????, ???????? ??????? > ???????? ??????? ? ???, ??? ??? ??????????? ???????? ? > ?????????? ????. ????? ???????, ???????????? ? ??? ?? > ??????? ? ?? ???????????? ???????, ? ???????, ??????? > ????????, ???? ?????????? ???????? ? ???????????, ???? ????????. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 14/10/2017 11:36 AM, mike cole wrote: >> Thanks for being so concrete, Andy. >> Could someone post the Russian text next to the English so >> that it is possible to compare it with the translation? I >> spent several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development >> of Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally >> defeated me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra >> rubles in my pocket. >> >> Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us a >> "true" translation. >> >> mike >> >> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden >> > wrote: >> >> The Progress Publishers English translation of >> "Activity and >> Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of >> Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: >> >> Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, >> material life of the material subject. In the narrower >> sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a >> unit of >> life, mediated by mental reflection, by >> an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the >> subject in the objective world. >> >> In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The >> Development of Mind" we have: >> >> Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an >> organism?s activity; the different activities that realise >> its diverse vital relations with the surrounding >> reality are >> essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore >> differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively >> different] types of activity according to the >> difference in >> their objects. >> >> By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses >> "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has >> been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for >> English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean >> simply >> "category." The second does the same, but in addition >> makes >> it evident that the plural does not refer to different >> activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the >> possibility of forming a true concept of activity >> altogether. >> >> With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is >> simply that "such an initial *category* can only be >> object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing >> that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, >> even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> >> On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: >>> Dear Andy! >>> I am glad that our communication was resumed after many >>> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and >> files >>> and found that the problem of "object oriented >> activity OR >>> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before >>> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is >> serious and >>> it deserves to return to it today. >>> Last year I was close to being silent forever. >>> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed >>> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the >>> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my >>> theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my >>> descendants :-). >>> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not >>> understand your question. What means the distinction >>> between singular and plural number in your remark? Could >>> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the >>> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my >>> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, >>> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of >>> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my >> dissertation >>> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's >> "Theory of >>> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, >>> having understood the theoretic meaning of your >> claims to >>> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily >>> understand the essence of your objections to me. >>> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I >>> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a >>> particular empirical case of its manifestation. >> Therefore, >>> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just >> like >>> Matter, Nature, or Substance. >>> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come >> across >>> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its >>> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the >>> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old >>> philosophers and that only the numerous individual >> "atomic >>> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really >>> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar >>> positivism and empiricism. >>> However, all of this may not apply to your position ... >>> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. >>> Best wishes >>> Sasha >>> >>> >>> >>> ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden >>> > ?????(?): >>> >>> >>> I'll ask Sasha a question. >>> >>> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial >>> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it >> stands, >>> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be >> that you >>> are translating it from a Russian statement that is >> correct. >>> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in >> when I >>> say "every activity has an object." But in your >> expression >>> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural >> and unless >>> you are a religious person is not something which >> can have a >>> specific object. All English translations of A N >> Leontyev >>> make this mistake which has caused no end of >> confusion among >>> English-speakers. >>> >>> Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," >> just as >>> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> >>> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>>> Dear Sasha, all, >>>> >>>> >>>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding >>> response. I think you are right in your assertion >> that we >>> are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of >>> CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. >> However, one >>> can see in the lack of response by other members?? that >>> not everyone has the privilege of the time it >> requires to >>> go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing >>> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce >> and I >>> hope it is/will be appreciated as such. >>>> >>>> >>>> If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I >> quote >>> from your response: >>>> >>>> >>>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial >> category, >>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then >> for us >>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication >> from the >>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" >>>> >>>> >>>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework >>> according to which we are looking of the most original >>> germ cell, the one from which all others can be >>> developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I >>> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree >> on that. >>>> >>>> >>>> But ??once we are back to the development of a >> concrete >>> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact >> that, for >>> any child to participate in human forms of >> object-oriented >>> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented >>> activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular >>> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into >> those >>> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category >>> devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with >>> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you >> describe, is >>> this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, >> or is >>> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? >>>> >>>> >>>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others >> answer >>> (which I hope some do). >>>> >>>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: >>>> >>>> >>>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in >>> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of >> teaching >>> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this >>> is only possible through *involvement* in collective >>> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary >>> over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is >>> only possible in and through object-oriented activity). >>> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional >> aspect of >>> the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to >>> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this >>> object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all >>> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually >>> uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such >>> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get >>> collective activity without them? On this, and precisely >>> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of >> Man", >>> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in >> that >>> case that communication is included in activity and >> is its >>> essential component: without relation to another >>> person(s), activity is impossible' (144). Although >> I not >>> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I >> can't >>> see how he can be wrong. >>>> >>>> >>>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of >>> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the >>> category of object-oriented activity, is most >> primary. Let >>> me also note that ?there are other authors who have >>> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you >>> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on >>> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom >>> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of >> auto-affection' ( >>> >> https://www.amazon.com/Incarnation-Philosophy-Studies-Phenomenology-Existential/dp/0810131269 >> >>> ) >>>> >>>> >>>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I >> wonder >>> whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity >>> and communication. Is not the distinction just an >> artefact >>> of a partial understanding of what it means activity and >>> what it means communicating. I still feel that >>> communication, in the sense of addressivity that >> Mikhailov >>> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for >>> semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity >>> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't >>> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps >>> naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication >>> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in >>> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I >>> don't see how any practical activity can have any sense >>> (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. >>> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are >>> talking about; one machines could perform on their own >>> without consciousness. ? >>>> >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> Alfredo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: Alexander Surmava >> > >>> > >> >>>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 >>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >> >>> > >; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo >>> Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole >>>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication >>>> >>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>> The discussion really becomes more and more >> interesting, >>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? >> (replica >>> aside) :-) >>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical >> approach, >>> based on the general principles accepted in its >> framework >>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our >> discussions >>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the >> principle >>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism >> compatible >>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, >> it is >>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>> these two principles something third, say - >> "subjectness"? >>>> I am convinced that without answering these and >> similar >>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our >> inquiry >>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. >> But this >>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological >> theory, >>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>> interesting only for us theoretical >>> >> verbiage> > >>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions >> between >>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for >> me too >>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>> >>>> Agitprop >>>> sticks >>>> in my teeth too, >>>> and I?d rather >>>> compose >>>> romances for you - >>>> more profit in it >>>> and more charm. >>>> But I >>>> subdued >>>> myself, >>>> setting my heel >>>> on the throat >>>> of my own song. >>>> Vladimir Mayakovski >>>> >>>> ? ??? >>>> ???????? >>>> ? ????? ?????, >>>> ? ??? ?? >>>> ???????? >>>> ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>> ???????? ??? >>>> ? ??????????. >>>> ?? ? >>>> ???? >>>> ??????, >>>> ????????? >>>> ?? ????? >>>> ??????????? ?????. >>>> ???????? ?????????? >>>> >>>> >>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>> return to the most abstract level all the time, >> literally >>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the >> abstract >>> to the concrete. >>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting >> questions >>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>> >> ????????????> >. >>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>> English international journal... but for some strange >>> reason was not published then or later. >>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>> >> https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS >> . >>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the >> interaction >>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no >> case >>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic >> of the >>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not >> dealing >>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the >> logic >>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>> terminology of German classics. In other words, >> "positing" >>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>> that one can not in principle separate out its >> active and >>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic >> interaction, in >>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>> are many interesting differences between them, but >> let us >>> return to this somehow later. >>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>> work of 1988: >>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun >> taken >>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >> activity. >>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive >> relation, >>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism >> does not >>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the >> organism >>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >> relation.? >>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>> "addressing" to another person. >>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to >> try to >>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has >> been and >>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >> Ilyenkov. >>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If >> we want >>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to >> choose one >>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the >> human >>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>> social relations.. " >>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical >> psychology >>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, >> then >>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>> different meanings on this topic and with which of >> them it >>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>> solved by ourselves. >>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader >> was AN >>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, >> second >>> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a >> group of >>> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was >> inclined to >>> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, >>> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" >>> were for communication. >>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal >>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered >> something >>> rather indecent. >>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by >> organizing >>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of >> scientific >>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters >>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>> "communication" and "activity." >>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then >> for us >>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication >> from the >>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. >>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but >> a fact >>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex >> dialectic >>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the >> course >>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive >> Activity" >>> communication and the affective side of life are >> taken not >>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my >>> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a >>> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the >>> relation of objective activity and "communication". >> In the >>> same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, >>> the active relation of the subject to the object and to >>> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the >> human, as, >>> indeed, any other, psychology. >>>> ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? >> ????, >>> ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, >>> ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, >>> ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? >>> >> https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS >> >>> ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. >>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most >> suitable >>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem >> of the >>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>> English text >>> >> https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS >> >>> and read it to the end :-). >>>> ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND >> HUMAN >>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? >> ???????????? >>> >> ????????????> > >>>> ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? >>> ??????????? ???????? >>> >> https://www.avramus.com/app/download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 >> >>> . >>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>> The discussion really becomes more and more >> interesting, >>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? >> (replica >>> aside) :-) >>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical >> approach, >>> based on the general principles accepted in its >> framework >>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our >> discussions >>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the >> principle >>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism >> compatible >>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, >> it is >>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>> these two principles something third, say - >> "subjectness"? >>>> I am convinced that without answering these and >> similar >>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our >> inquiry >>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. >> But this >>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological >> theory, >>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>> interesting only for us theoretical >>> >> verbiage> > >>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions >> between >>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for >> me too >>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>> >>>> Agitprop >>>> sticks >>>> in my teeth too, >>>> and I?d rather >>>> compose >>>> romances for you - >>>> more profit in it >>>> and more charm. >>>> But I >>>> subdued >>>> myself, >>>> setting my heel >>>> on the throat >>>> of my own song. >>>> Vladimir Mayakovski >>>> >>>> ? ??? >>>> ???????? >>>> ? ????? ?????, >>>> ? ??? ?? >>>> ???????? >>>> ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>> ???????? ??? >>>> ? ??????????. >>>> ?? ? >>>> ???? >>>> ??????, >>>> ????????? >>>> ?? ????? >>>> ??????????? ?????. >>>> ???????? ?????????? >>>> >>>> >>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>> return to the most abstract level all the time, >> literally >>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the >> abstract >>> to the concrete. >>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting >> questions >>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>> >> ????????????> >. >>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>> English international journal... but for some strange >>> reason was not published then or later. >>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>> >> https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS >> . >>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the >> interaction >>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no >> case >>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic >> of the >>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not >> dealing >>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the >> logic >>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>> terminology of German classics. In other words, >> "positing" >>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>> that one can not in principle separate out its >> active and >>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic >> interaction, in >>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>> are many interesting differences between them, but >> let us >>> return to this somehow later. >>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>> work of 1988: >>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun >> taken >>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >> activity. >>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive >> relation, >>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism >> does not >>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the >> organism >>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >> relation.? >>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>> "addressing" to another person. >>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to >> try to >>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has >> been and >>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >> Ilyenkov. >>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If >> we want >>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to >> choose one >>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the >> human >>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>> social relations.. " >>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical >> psychology >>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, >> then >>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>> different meanings on this topic and with which of >> them it >>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>> solved by ourselves. >>>> >>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was >>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, >> second >>> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", >> whereas >>> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was >>> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other >>> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas >>> "Leningraders" were for "communication". >>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a >> literal >>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered >> something >>> rather indecent. >>>> >>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by >> organizing >>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of >> scientific >>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters >>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>> >>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>> "communication" and "activity." >>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then >> for us >>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication >> from the >>> object oriented activity, which is an attribute property >>> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, >>> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we >>> will never get life or object oriented activity even >> with >>> the greatest diligence. >>>> >>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but >> a fact >>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex >> dialectic >>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the >> course >>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>> >>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive >> Activity" >>> communication and the affective side of life are >> taken not >>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>> >>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my >> diploma >>> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist >>> theoretical solution to the question of the relation of >>> objective activity and "communication". In the same >> time, >>> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active >>> relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is >>> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, >>> any other, psychology. >>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most >> suitable >>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem >> of the >>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>> English text >>> >> https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS >> >>> and read it to the end :-). >>>> >>>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND >> HUMAN >>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? >> ???????????? >>> >> ????????????> > >>>> >>>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short >>> English one >>> >> https://www.avramus.com/app/download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 >> . >>>> >>>> Sasha >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > From ablunden@mira.net Fri Oct 13 19:34:27 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 13:34:27 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <625D941E-F734-490F-841C-3FA7E842300F@uniandes.edu.co> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <625D941E-F734-490F-841C-3FA7E842300F@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: <0a391135-ee3f-7bb3-8913-33b694772778@mira.net> This is the Progress Publishers translation, Martin: Activity is a molar, not an additive unit of the life of the physical, material subject. In a narrower sense, that is, at the psychological level, it is a unit of life, mediated by psychic reflection, the real function of which is that it orients the subject in the objective world. In other words, activity is not a reaction and not a totality of reactions but a system that has structure, its own internal transitions and transformations, its own development. I presume what you posted was your own? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 14/10/2017 1:17 PM, Martin John Packer wrote: > Activity is a molar, not an additive unit of life > corporal, material subject. In a more narrow sense, > those. at the psychological level, this is a unit of life, > mediated by mental reflection, the real function > which consists in the fact that it orientates the subject in > objective world. In other words, the activity is not > reaction and not a set of reactions, but a system that has > structure, its internal transitions and transformations, its development. > > Martin > > >> On Oct 13, 2017, at 7:53 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >> This is the opening paragraph of ch. 3, s. 2 of????????????. >> ????????. ???????? >> >> ???????????? ???? ????????, ?? ?????????? ??????? ????? >> ?????????, ????????????? ????????. ? ????? ????? ??????, >> ?.?. ?? ??????????????? ??????, ??? ??????? ?????, >> ?????????????? ??????????? ??????????, ???????? ??????? >> ???????? ??????? ? ???, ??? ??? ??????????? ???????? ? >> ?????????? ????. ????? ???????, ???????????? ? ??? ?? >> ??????? ? ?? ???????????? ???????, ? ???????, ??????? >> ????????, ???? ?????????? ???????? ? ???????????, ???? ????????. >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 14/10/2017 11:36 AM, mike cole wrote: >>> Thanks for being so concrete, Andy. >>> Could someone post the Russian text next to the English so >>> that it is possible to compare it with the translation? I >>> spent several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development >>> of Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally >>> defeated me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra >>> rubles in my pocket. >>> >>> Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us a >>> "true" translation. >>> >>> mike >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden >>> > wrote: >>> >>> The Progress Publishers English translation of >>> "Activity and >>> Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of >>> Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: >>> >>> Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, >>> material life of the material subject. In the narrower >>> sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a >>> unit of >>> life, mediated by mental reflection, by >>> an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the >>> subject in the objective world. >>> >>> In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The >>> Development of Mind" we have: >>> >>> Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an >>> organism?s activity; the different activities that realise >>> its diverse vital relations with the surrounding >>> reality are >>> essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore >>> differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively >>> different] types of activity according to the >>> difference in >>> their objects. >>> >>> By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses >>> "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has >>> been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for >>> English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean >>> simply >>> "category." The second does the same, but in addition >>> makes >>> it evident that the plural does not refer to different >>> activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the >>> possibility of forming a true concept of activity >>> altogether. >>> >>> With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is >>> simply that "such an initial *category* can only be >>> object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing >>> that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, >>> even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. >>> >>> Andy >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> >>> On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: >>>> Dear Andy! >>>> I am glad that our communication was resumed after many >>>> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and >>> files >>>> and found that the problem of "object oriented >>> activity OR >>>> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before >>>> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is >>> serious and >>>> it deserves to return to it today. >>>> Last year I was close to being silent forever. >>>> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed >>>> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the >>>> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my >>>> theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my >>>> descendants :-). >>>> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not >>>> understand your question. What means the distinction >>>> between singular and plural number in your remark? Could >>>> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the >>>> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my >>>> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, >>>> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of >>>> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my >>> dissertation >>>> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's >>> "Theory of >>>> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, >>>> having understood the theoretic meaning of your >>> claims to >>>> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily >>>> understand the essence of your objections to me. >>>> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I >>>> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a >>>> particular empirical case of its manifestation. >>> Therefore, >>>> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just >>> like >>>> Matter, Nature, or Substance. >>>> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come >>> across >>>> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its >>>> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the >>>> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old >>>> philosophers and that only the numerous individual >>> "atomic >>>> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really >>>> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar >>>> positivism and empiricism. >>>> However, all of this may not apply to your position ... >>>> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. >>>> Best wishes >>>> Sasha >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden >>>> > ?????(?): >>>> >>>> >>>> I'll ask Sasha a question. >>>> >>>> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial >>>> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it >>> stands, >>>> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be >>> that you >>>> are translating it from a Russian statement that is >>> correct. >>>> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in >>> when I >>>> say "every activity has an object." But in your >>> expression >>>> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural >>> and unless >>>> you are a religious person is not something which >>> can have a >>>> specific object. All English translations of A N >>> Leontyev >>>> make this mistake which has caused no end of >>> confusion among >>>> English-speakers. >>>> >>>> Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," >>> just as >>>> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> >>>> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>>>> Dear Sasha, all, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding >>>> response. I think you are right in your assertion >>> that we >>>> are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of >>>> CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. >>> However, one >>>> can see in the lack of response by other members?? that >>>> not everyone has the privilege of the time it >>> requires to >>>> go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing >>>> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce >>> and I >>>> hope it is/will be appreciated as such. >>>>> >>>>> If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I >>> quote >>>> from your response: >>>>> >>>>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial >>> category, >>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then >>> for us >>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication >>> from the >>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" >>>>> >>>>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework >>>> according to which we are looking of the most original >>>> germ cell, the one from which all others can be >>>> developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I >>>> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree >>> on that. >>>>> >>>>> But ??once we are back to the development of a >>> concrete >>>> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact >>> that, for >>>> any child to participate in human forms of >>> object-oriented >>>> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented >>>> activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular >>>> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into >>> those >>>> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category >>>> devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with >>>> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you >>> describe, is >>>> this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, >>> or is >>>> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? >>>>> >>>>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others >>> answer >>>> (which I hope some do). >>>>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in >>>> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of >>> teaching >>>> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this >>>> is only possible through *involvement* in collective >>>> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary >>>> over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is >>>> only possible in and through object-oriented activity). >>>> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional >>> aspect of >>>> the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to >>>> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this >>>> object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all >>>> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually >>>> uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such >>>> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get >>>> collective activity without them? On this, and precisely >>>> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of >>> Man", >>>> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in >>> that >>>> case that communication is included in activity and >>> is its >>>> essential component: without relation to another >>>> person(s), activity is impossible' (144). Although >>> I not >>>> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I >>> can't >>>> see how he can be wrong. >>>>> >>>>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of >>>> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the >>>> category of object-oriented activity, is most >>> primary. Let >>>> me also note that ?there are other authors who have >>>> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you >>>> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on >>>> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom >>>> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of >>> auto-affection' ( >>> https://www.amazon.com/Incarnation-Philosophy-Studies-Phenomenology-Existential/dp/0810131269 >>> >>>> ) >>>>> >>>>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I >>> wonder >>>> whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity >>>> and communication. Is not the distinction just an >>> artefact >>>> of a partial understanding of what it means activity and >>>> what it means communicating. I still feel that >>>> communication, in the sense of addressivity that >>> Mikhailov >>>> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for >>>> semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity >>>> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't >>>> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps >>>> naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication >>>> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in >>>> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I >>>> don't see how any practical activity can have any sense >>>> (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. >>>> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are >>>> talking about; one machines could perform on their own >>>> without consciousness. ? >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>> Alfredo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> From: Alexander Surmava >>> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 >>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> >>>> >> >; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo >>>> Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole >>>>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication >>>>> >>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more >>> interesting, >>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? >>> (replica >>>> aside) :-) >>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical >>> approach, >>>> based on the general principles accepted in its >>> framework >>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our >>> discussions >>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the >>> principle >>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism >>> compatible >>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, >>> it is >>>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>>> these two principles something third, say - >>> "subjectness"? >>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and >>> similar >>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our >>> inquiry >>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. >>> But this >>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological >>> theory, >>>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>>> interesting only for us theoretical >>>> >>> verbiage>> > >>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions >>> between >>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for >>> me too >>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>>> Agitprop >>>>> sticks >>>>> in my teeth too, >>>>> and I?d rather >>>>> compose >>>>> romances for you - >>>>> more profit in it >>>>> and more charm. >>>>> But I >>>>> subdued >>>>> myself, >>>>> setting my heel >>>>> on the throat >>>>> of my own song. >>>>> Vladimir Mayakovski >>>>> >>>>> ? ??? >>>>> ???????? >>>>> ? ????? ?????, >>>>> ? ??? ?? >>>>> ???????? >>>>> ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>>> ???????? ??? >>>>> ? ??????????. >>>>> ?? ? >>>>> ???? >>>>> ??????, >>>>> ????????? >>>>> ?? ????? >>>>> ??????????? ?????. >>>>> ???????? ?????????? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, >>> literally >>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the >>> abstract >>>> to the concrete. >>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting >>> questions >>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>> >>> ????????????>> >. >>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>>> English international journal... but for some strange >>>> reason was not published then or later. >>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>>> >>> https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS >>> . >>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the >>> interaction >>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no >>> case >>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic >>> of the >>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not >>> dealing >>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the >>> logic >>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, >>> "positing" >>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>>> that one can not in principle separate out its >>> active and >>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic >>> interaction, in >>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>>> are many interesting differences between them, but >>> let us >>>> return to this somehow later. >>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>>> work of 1988: >>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun >>> taken >>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >>> activity. >>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive >>> relation, >>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism >>> does not >>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the >>> organism >>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >>> relation.? >>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>>> "addressing" to another person. >>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to >>> try to >>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has >>> been and >>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >>> Ilyenkov. >>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If >>> we want >>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to >>> choose one >>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the >>> human >>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>>> social relations.. " >>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical >>> psychology >>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, >>> then >>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of >>> them it >>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>>> solved by ourselves. >>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader >>> was AN >>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, >>> second >>>> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a >>> group of >>>> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was >>> inclined to >>>> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, >>>> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" >>>> were for communication. >>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>>> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal >>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered >>> something >>>> rather indecent. >>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by >>> organizing >>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of >>> scientific >>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters >>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>>> "communication" and "activity." >>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then >>> for us >>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication >>> from the >>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. >>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but >>> a fact >>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex >>> dialectic >>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the >>> course >>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive >>> Activity" >>>> communication and the affective side of life are >>> taken not >>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my >>>> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a >>>> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the >>>> relation of objective activity and "communication". >>> In the >>>> same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, >>>> the active relation of the subject to the object and to >>>> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the >>> human, as, >>>> indeed, any other, psychology. >>>>> ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? >>> ????, >>>> ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, >>>> ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, >>>> ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? >>>> >>> https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS >>> >>>> ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. >>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most >>> suitable >>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem >>> of the >>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>>> English text >>>> >>> https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS >>> >>>> and read it to the end :-). >>>>> ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND >>> HUMAN >>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? >>> ???????????? >>> ????????????>> > >>>>> ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? >>>> ??????????? ???????? >>>> >>> https://www.avramus.com/app/download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 >>> >>>> . >>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more >>> interesting, >>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? >>> (replica >>>> aside) :-) >>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical >>> approach, >>>> based on the general principles accepted in its >>> framework >>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our >>> discussions >>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the >>> principle >>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism >>> compatible >>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, >>> it is >>>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>>> these two principles something third, say - >>> "subjectness"? >>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and >>> similar >>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our >>> inquiry >>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. >>> But this >>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological >>> theory, >>>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>>> interesting only for us theoretical >>>> >>> verbiage>> > >>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions >>> between >>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for >>> me too >>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>>> Agitprop >>>>> sticks >>>>> in my teeth too, >>>>> and I?d rather >>>>> compose >>>>> romances for you - >>>>> more profit in it >>>>> and more charm. >>>>> But I >>>>> subdued >>>>> myself, >>>>> setting my heel >>>>> on the throat >>>>> of my own song. >>>>> Vladimir Mayakovski >>>>> >>>>> ? ??? >>>>> ???????? >>>>> ? ????? ?????, >>>>> ? ??? ?? >>>>> ???????? >>>>> ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>>> ???????? ??? >>>>> ? ??????????. >>>>> ?? ? >>>>> ???? >>>>> ??????, >>>>> ????????? >>>>> ?? ????? >>>>> ??????????? ?????. >>>>> ???????? ?????????? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, >>> literally >>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the >>> abstract >>>> to the concrete. >>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting >>> questions >>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>> >>> ????????????>> >. >>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>>> English international journal... but for some strange >>>> reason was not published then or later. >>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>>> >>> https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS >>> . >>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the >>> interaction >>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no >>> case >>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic >>> of the >>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not >>> dealing >>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the >>> logic >>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, >>> "positing" >>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>>> that one can not in principle separate out its >>> active and >>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic >>> interaction, in >>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>>> are many interesting differences between them, but >>> let us >>>> return to this somehow later. >>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>>> work of 1988: >>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun >>> taken >>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >>> activity. >>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive >>> relation, >>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism >>> does not >>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the >>> organism >>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >>> relation.? >>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>>> "addressing" to another person. >>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to >>> try to >>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has >>> been and >>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >>> Ilyenkov. >>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If >>> we want >>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to >>> choose one >>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the >>> human >>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>>> social relations.. " >>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical >>> psychology >>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, >>> then >>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of >>> them it >>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>>> solved by ourselves. >>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was >>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, >>> second >>>> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", >>> whereas >>>> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was >>>> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other >>>> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas >>>> "Leningraders" were for "communication". >>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>>> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a >>> literal >>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered >>> something >>>> rather indecent. >>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by >>> organizing >>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of >>> scientific >>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters >>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>>> "communication" and "activity." >>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then >>> for us >>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication >>> from the >>>> object oriented activity, which is an attribute property >>>> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, >>>> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we >>>> will never get life or object oriented activity even >>> with >>>> the greatest diligence. >>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but >>> a fact >>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex >>> dialectic >>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the >>> course >>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive >>> Activity" >>>> communication and the affective side of life are >>> taken not >>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my >>> diploma >>>> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist >>>> theoretical solution to the question of the relation of >>>> objective activity and "communication". In the same >>> time, >>>> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active >>>> relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is >>>> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, >>>> any other, psychology. >>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most >>> suitable >>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem >>> of the >>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>>> English text >>>> >>> https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS >>> >>>> and read it to the end :-). >>>>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND >>> HUMAN >>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? >>> ???????????? >>> ????????????>> > >>>>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short >>>> English one >>>> >>> https://www.avramus.com/app/download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 >>> . >>>>> Sasha >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> > > > From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Sat Oct 14 10:05:19 2017 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 17:05:19 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <0a391135-ee3f-7bb3-8913-33b694772778@mira.net> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <625D941E-F734-490F-841C-3FA7E842300F@uniandes.edu.co> <0a391135-ee3f-7bb3-8913-33b694772778@mira.net> Message-ID: <460E2F0E-C30B-4769-BA66-A0EEE64722CF@uniandes.edu.co> Translation courtesy of my friend Google, Andy. I am confused: which is the Progress Publishers translation? You seem to have posted two. Martin > On Oct 13, 2017, at 9:34 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > This is the Progress Publishers translation, Martin: > > Activity is a molar, not an additive unit of the life of > the physical, material subject. In a narrower sense, > that is, at the psychological level, it is a unit of > life, mediated by psychic reflection, the real function > of which is that it orients the subject in the objective > world. In other words, activity is not a reaction and > not a totality of reactions but a system that has > structure, its own internal transitions and > transformations, its own development. > > I presume what you posted was your own? > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 14/10/2017 1:17 PM, Martin John Packer wrote: >> Activity is a molar, not an additive unit of life >> corporal, material subject. In a more narrow sense, >> those. at the psychological level, this is a unit of life, >> mediated by mental reflection, the real function >> which consists in the fact that it orientates the subject in >> objective world. In other words, the activity is not >> reaction and not a set of reactions, but a system that has >> structure, its internal transitions and transformations, its development. >> >> Martin >> >> >>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 7:53 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >>> >>> This is the opening paragraph of ch. 3, s. 2 of????????????. >>> ????????. ???????? >>> >>> ???????????? ???? ????????, ?? ?????????? ??????? ????? >>> ?????????, ????????????? ????????. ? ????? ????? ??????, >>> ?.?. ?? ??????????????? ??????, ??? ??????? ?????, >>> ?????????????? ??????????? ??????????, ???????? ??????? >>> ???????? ??????? ? ???, ??? ??? ??????????? ???????? ? >>> ?????????? ????. ????? ???????, ???????????? ? ??? ?? >>> ??????? ? ?? ???????????? ???????, ? ???????, ??????? >>> ????????, ???? ?????????? ???????? ? ???????????, ???? ????????. >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 14/10/2017 11:36 AM, mike cole wrote: >>>> Thanks for being so concrete, Andy. >>>> Could someone post the Russian text next to the English so >>>> that it is possible to compare it with the translation? I >>>> spent several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development >>>> of Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally >>>> defeated me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra >>>> rubles in my pocket. >>>> >>>> Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us a >>>> "true" translation. >>>> >>>> mike >>>> >>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> The Progress Publishers English translation of >>>> "Activity and >>>> Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of >>>> Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: >>>> >>>> Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, >>>> material life of the material subject. In the narrower >>>> sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a >>>> unit of >>>> life, mediated by mental reflection, by >>>> an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the >>>> subject in the objective world. >>>> >>>> In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The >>>> Development of Mind" we have: >>>> >>>> Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an >>>> organism?s activity; the different activities that realise >>>> its diverse vital relations with the surrounding >>>> reality are >>>> essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore >>>> differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively >>>> different] types of activity according to the >>>> difference in >>>> their objects. >>>> >>>> By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses >>>> "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has >>>> been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for >>>> English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean >>>> simply >>>> "category." The second does the same, but in addition >>>> makes >>>> it evident that the plural does not refer to different >>>> activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the >>>> possibility of forming a true concept of activity >>>> altogether. >>>> >>>> With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is >>>> simply that "such an initial *category* can only be >>>> object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing >>>> that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, >>>> even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> >>>> On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: >>>>> Dear Andy! >>>>> I am glad that our communication was resumed after many >>>>> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and >>>> files >>>>> and found that the problem of "object oriented >>>> activity OR >>>>> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before >>>>> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is >>>> serious and >>>>> it deserves to return to it today. >>>>> Last year I was close to being silent forever. >>>>> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed >>>>> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the >>>>> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my >>>>> theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my >>>>> descendants :-). >>>>> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not >>>>> understand your question. What means the distinction >>>>> between singular and plural number in your remark? Could >>>>> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the >>>>> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my >>>>> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, >>>>> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of >>>>> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my >>>> dissertation >>>>> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's >>>> "Theory of >>>>> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, >>>>> having understood the theoretic meaning of your >>>> claims to >>>>> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily >>>>> understand the essence of your objections to me. >>>>> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I >>>>> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a >>>>> particular empirical case of its manifestation. >>>> Therefore, >>>>> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just >>>> like >>>>> Matter, Nature, or Substance. >>>>> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come >>>> across >>>>> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its >>>>> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the >>>>> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old >>>>> philosophers and that only the numerous individual >>>> "atomic >>>>> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really >>>>> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar >>>>> positivism and empiricism. >>>>> However, all of this may not apply to your position ... >>>>> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. >>>>> Best wishes >>>>> Sasha >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden >>>>> > ?????(?): >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'll ask Sasha a question. >>>>> >>>>> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial >>>>> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it >>>> stands, >>>>> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be >>>> that you >>>>> are translating it from a Russian statement that is >>>> correct. >>>>> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in >>>> when I >>>>> say "every activity has an object." But in your >>>> expression >>>>> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural >>>> and unless >>>>> you are a religious person is not something which >>>> can have a >>>>> specific object. All English translations of A N >>>> Leontyev >>>>> make this mistake which has caused no end of >>>> confusion among >>>>> English-speakers. >>>>> >>>>> Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," >>>> just as >>>>> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." >>>>> >>>>> Andy >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> >>>>> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>>>>> Dear Sasha, all, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding >>>>> response. I think you are right in your assertion >>>> that we >>>>> are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of >>>>> CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. >>>> However, one >>>>> can see in the lack of response by other members?? that >>>>> not everyone has the privilege of the time it >>>> requires to >>>>> go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing >>>>> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce >>>> and I >>>>> hope it is/will be appreciated as such. >>>>>> >>>>>> If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I >>>> quote >>>>> from your response: >>>>>> >>>>>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial >>>> category, >>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then >>>> for us >>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication >>>> from the >>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" >>>>>> >>>>>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework >>>>> according to which we are looking of the most original >>>>> germ cell, the one from which all others can be >>>>> developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I >>>>> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree >>>> on that. >>>>>> >>>>>> But ??once we are back to the development of a >>>> concrete >>>>> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact >>>> that, for >>>>> any child to participate in human forms of >>>> object-oriented >>>>> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented >>>>> activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular >>>>> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into >>>> those >>>>> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category >>>>> devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with >>>>> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you >>>> describe, is >>>>> this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, >>>> or is >>>>> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? >>>>>> >>>>>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others >>>> answer >>>>> (which I hope some do). >>>>>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in >>>>> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of >>>> teaching >>>>> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this >>>>> is only possible through *involvement* in collective >>>>> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary >>>>> over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is >>>>> only possible in and through object-oriented activity). >>>>> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional >>>> aspect of >>>>> the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to >>>>> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this >>>>> object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all >>>>> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually >>>>> uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such >>>>> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get >>>>> collective activity without them? On this, and precisely >>>>> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of >>>> Man", >>>>> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in >>>> that >>>>> case that communication is included in activity and >>>> is its >>>>> essential component: without relation to another >>>>> person(s), activity is impossible' (144). Although >>>> I not >>>>> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I >>>> can't >>>>> see how he can be wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of >>>>> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the >>>>> category of object-oriented activity, is most >>>> primary. Let >>>>> me also note that ?there are other authors who have >>>>> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you >>>>> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on >>>>> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom >>>>> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of >>>> auto-affection' ( >>>> https://www.amazon.com/Incarnation-Philosophy-Studies-Phenomenology-Existential/dp/0810131269 >>>> >>>>> ) >>>>>> >>>>>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I >>>> wonder >>>>> whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity >>>>> and communication. Is not the distinction just an >>>> artefact >>>>> of a partial understanding of what it means activity and >>>>> what it means communicating. I still feel that >>>>> communication, in the sense of addressivity that >>>> Mikhailov >>>>> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for >>>>> semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity >>>>> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't >>>>> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps >>>>> naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication >>>>> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in >>>>> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I >>>>> don't see how any practical activity can have any sense >>>>> (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. >>>>> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are >>>>> talking about; one machines could perform on their own >>>>> without consciousness. ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>> >>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>> From: Alexander Surmava >>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 >>>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> >>>>> >>> >; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo >>>>> Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole >>>>>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more >>>> interesting, >>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? >>>> (replica >>>>> aside) :-) >>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical >>>> approach, >>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its >>>> framework >>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our >>>> discussions >>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>>>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the >>>> principle >>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism >>>> compatible >>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, >>>> it is >>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>>>> these two principles something third, say - >>>> "subjectness"? >>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and >>>> similar >>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our >>>> inquiry >>>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. >>>> But this >>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological >>>> theory, >>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>>>> interesting only for us theoretical >>>>> >>>> verbiage>>> > >>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions >>>> between >>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for >>>> me too >>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>>>> Agitprop >>>>>> sticks >>>>>> in my teeth too, >>>>>> and I?d rather >>>>>> compose >>>>>> romances for you - >>>>>> more profit in it >>>>>> and more charm. >>>>>> But I >>>>>> subdued >>>>>> myself, >>>>>> setting my heel >>>>>> on the throat >>>>>> of my own song. >>>>>> Vladimir Mayakovski >>>>>> >>>>>> ? ??? >>>>>> ???????? >>>>>> ? ????? ?????, >>>>>> ? ??? ?? >>>>>> ???????? >>>>>> ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>>>> ???????? ??? >>>>>> ? ??????????. >>>>>> ?? ? >>>>>> ???? >>>>>> ??????, >>>>>> ????????? >>>>>> ?? ????? >>>>>> ??????????? ?????. >>>>>> ???????? ?????????? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, >>>> literally >>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the >>>> abstract >>>>> to the concrete. >>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting >>>> questions >>>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>> >>>> ????????????>>> >. >>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>>>> English international journal... but for some strange >>>>> reason was not published then or later. >>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>>>> >>>> https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS >>>> . >>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the >>>> interaction >>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no >>>> case >>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic >>>> of the >>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not >>>> dealing >>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the >>>> logic >>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, >>>> "positing" >>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its >>>> active and >>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic >>>> interaction, in >>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>>>> are many interesting differences between them, but >>>> let us >>>>> return to this somehow later. >>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>>>> work of 1988: >>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun >>>> taken >>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>>>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >>>> activity. >>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive >>>> relation, >>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism >>>> does not >>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the >>>> organism >>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >>>> relation.? >>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>>>> "addressing" to another person. >>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to >>>> try to >>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has >>>> been and >>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >>>> Ilyenkov. >>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If >>>> we want >>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to >>>> choose one >>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the >>>> human >>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>>>> social relations.. " >>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical >>>> psychology >>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, >>>> then >>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of >>>> them it >>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>>>> solved by ourselves. >>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader >>>> was AN >>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, >>>> second >>>>> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a >>>> group of >>>>> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was >>>> inclined to >>>>> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, >>>>> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" >>>>> were for communication. >>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>>>> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal >>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered >>>> something >>>>> rather indecent. >>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by >>>> organizing >>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of >>>> scientific >>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters >>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>>>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>>>> "communication" and "activity." >>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then >>>> for us >>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication >>>> from the >>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. >>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but >>>> a fact >>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex >>>> dialectic >>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the >>>> course >>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive >>>> Activity" >>>>> communication and the affective side of life are >>>> taken not >>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>>>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my >>>>> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a >>>>> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the >>>>> relation of objective activity and "communication". >>>> In the >>>>> same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, >>>>> the active relation of the subject to the object and to >>>>> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the >>>> human, as, >>>>> indeed, any other, psychology. >>>>>> ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? >>>> ????, >>>>> ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, >>>>> ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, >>>>> ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? >>>>> >>>> https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS >>>> >>>>> ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. >>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most >>>> suitable >>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem >>>> of the >>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>>>> English text >>>>> >>>> https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS >>>> >>>>> and read it to the end :-). >>>>>> ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND >>>> HUMAN >>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? >>>> ???????????? >>>> ????????????>>> > >>>>>> ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? >>>>> ??????????? ???????? >>>>> >>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 >>>> >>>>> . >>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more >>>> interesting, >>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? >>>> (replica >>>>> aside) :-) >>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical >>>> approach, >>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its >>>> framework >>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our >>>> discussions >>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>>>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the >>>> principle >>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism >>>> compatible >>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, >>>> it is >>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>>>> these two principles something third, say - >>>> "subjectness"? >>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and >>>> similar >>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our >>>> inquiry >>>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. >>>> But this >>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological >>>> theory, >>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>>>> interesting only for us theoretical >>>>> >>>> verbiage>>> > >>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions >>>> between >>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for >>>> me too >>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>>>> Agitprop >>>>>> sticks >>>>>> in my teeth too, >>>>>> and I?d rather >>>>>> compose >>>>>> romances for you - >>>>>> more profit in it >>>>>> and more charm. >>>>>> But I >>>>>> subdued >>>>>> myself, >>>>>> setting my heel >>>>>> on the throat >>>>>> of my own song. >>>>>> Vladimir Mayakovski >>>>>> >>>>>> ? ??? >>>>>> ???????? >>>>>> ? ????? ?????, >>>>>> ? ??? ?? >>>>>> ???????? >>>>>> ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>>>> ???????? ??? >>>>>> ? ??????????. >>>>>> ?? ? >>>>>> ???? >>>>>> ??????, >>>>>> ????????? >>>>>> ?? ????? >>>>>> ??????????? ?????. >>>>>> ???????? ?????????? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, >>>> literally >>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the >>>> abstract >>>>> to the concrete. >>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting >>>> questions >>>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>> >>>> ????????????>>> >. >>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>>>> English international journal... but for some strange >>>>> reason was not published then or later. >>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>>>> >>>> https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS >>>> . >>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the >>>> interaction >>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no >>>> case >>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic >>>> of the >>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not >>>> dealing >>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the >>>> logic >>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, >>>> "positing" >>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its >>>> active and >>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic >>>> interaction, in >>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>>>> are many interesting differences between them, but >>>> let us >>>>> return to this somehow later. >>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>>>> work of 1988: >>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun >>>> taken >>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>>>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >>>> activity. >>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive >>>> relation, >>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism >>>> does not >>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the >>>> organism >>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >>>> relation.? >>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>>>> "addressing" to another person. >>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to >>>> try to >>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has >>>> been and >>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >>>> Ilyenkov. >>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If >>>> we want >>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to >>>> choose one >>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the >>>> human >>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>>>> social relations.. " >>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical >>>> psychology >>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, >>>> then >>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of >>>> them it >>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>>>> solved by ourselves. >>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was >>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, >>>> second >>>>> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", >>>> whereas >>>>> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was >>>>> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other >>>>> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas >>>>> "Leningraders" were for "communication". >>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>>>> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a >>>> literal >>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered >>>> something >>>>> rather indecent. >>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by >>>> organizing >>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of >>>> scientific >>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters >>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>>>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>>>> "communication" and "activity." >>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then >>>> for us >>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication >>>> from the >>>>> object oriented activity, which is an attribute property >>>>> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, >>>>> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we >>>>> will never get life or object oriented activity even >>>> with >>>>> the greatest diligence. >>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but >>>> a fact >>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex >>>> dialectic >>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the >>>> course >>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive >>>> Activity" >>>>> communication and the affective side of life are >>>> taken not >>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>>>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my >>>> diploma >>>>> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist >>>>> theoretical solution to the question of the relation of >>>>> objective activity and "communication". In the same >>>> time, >>>>> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active >>>>> relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is >>>>> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, >>>>> any other, psychology. >>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most >>>> suitable >>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem >>>> of the >>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>>>> English text >>>>> >>>> https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS >>>> >>>>> and read it to the end :-). >>>>>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND >>>> HUMAN >>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? >>>> ???????????? >>>> ????????????>>> > >>>>>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short >>>>> English one >>>>> >>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 >>>> . >>>>>> Sasha >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >> >> > From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Sat Oct 14 15:24:11 2017 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:24:11 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> Message-ID: <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Mike, Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an activist for his concreteness and clarifications is crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes , Parts , and Moments. He personally provided us with examples from Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they convert Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced with the same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most valuable contribution) does not begin with the individual case in isolation which phenomenologically? speaking (in contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not obtained because one instance is considered detached from all relations and its subservience to the service of the Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is particular in some feature/s. And these particulars are essential. With other particulars in other individuals they are related actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense , this whole could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life itself. Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is , with category and concept only therefore , following Marx and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again on his feet (not that the firmament to that time did put "idea" on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on their heads but to put them again headstand thinking and acting with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just with their brains. Then taking all options in translation even that of a Machine into consideration it does not seem to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of activities thereafter. These activities are those arising from the properties of versatile objects in turn arising from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual activities as moments with the broadest idea of the Monistic Substantial Modes or States in Philosophical terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn integrate and are dissolved into Monism of Substance. Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one Substance) is already there with the organism actively and spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own , positioning its due object and moving along its contours and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to itself , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with a huge gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of consciousness , now apparently ascending to "wording" and "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration) further "communication" as something indispensable and necessary and inevitable to the realization of life affairs. Best Haydi? ? ? From: mike cole To: Andy Blunden ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Cc: Alexander Surmava ; ivan-dgf ; Ivan Uemlianin ; Haydi Zulfei Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50 Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.Could someone post the Russian text next to the English so that it is possible to compare it with the translation? I spent several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally defeated me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra rubles in my pocket. Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us a "true" translation. mike On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: The Progress Publishers English translation of "Activity and Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: ? ? Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, ? ? material life of the material subject. In the narrower ? ? sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a unit of ? ? life, mediated by mental reflection, by ? ? an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the ? ? subject in the objective world. In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The Development of Mind" we have: Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an organism?s activity; the different activities that realise its diverse vital relations with the surrounding reality are essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively different] types of activity according to the difference in their objects. By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean simply "category." The second does the same, but in addition makes it evident that the plural does not refer to different activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the possibility of forming a true concept of activity altogether. With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is simply that "such an initial *category* can only be object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. Andy ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics. org/ablunden/index.htm On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: > Dear Andy! > I am glad that our communication was resumed after many > years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and files > and found that the problem of "object oriented activity OR > communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before > our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is serious and > it deserves to return to it today. > Last year I was close to being silent forever. > Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed > this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the > opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my > theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my > descendants :-). > I will begin with honest recognition that I do not > understand your question. What means the distinction > between singular and plural number in your remark? Could > you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the > Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my > concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, > moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of > reflexive activity" (that is the title of my dissertation > work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's "Theory of > Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, > having understood the theoretic meaning of your claims to > AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily > understand the essence of your objections to me. > In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I > view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a > particular empirical case of its manifestation. Therefore, > object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just like > Matter, Nature, or Substance. > Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come across > only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its > innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the > conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old > philosophers and that only the numerous individual "atomic > facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really > exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar > positivism and empiricism. > However, all of this may not apply to your position ... > I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. > Best wishes > Sasha > > > > ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden > ?????(?): > > > I'll ask Sasha a question. > > Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial > category can only be object-oriented activity" as it stands, > in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be that you > are translating it from a Russian statement that is correct. > Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in when I > say "every activity has an object."? But in your expression > above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and unless > you are a religious person is not something which can have a > specific object. All English translations of A N Leontyev > make this mistake which has caused no end of confusion among > English-speakers. > > Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," just as > you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." > > Andy > > ------------------------------ ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics. org/ablunden/index.htm > On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > Dear Sasha, all, > > > > > > thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding > response. I think you are right in your assertion that we > are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of > CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. However, one > can see in the lack of response by other members?? that > not everyone has the privilege of the time it requires to > go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing > that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce and I > hope it is/will be appreciated as such. > > > > > > If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I quote > from your response: > > > > > > "If we want to make our choice of the initial category, > without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us > as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will > choose the one of the two categories from which one can > derive the entire diversity of human life, including > another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that > such an initial category can only be object-oriented > activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the > latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from > communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such > spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or > object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" > > > > > > If we stay within the boundaries of the framework > according to which we are looking of the most original > germ cell, the one from which all others can be > developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I > think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree on that. > > > > > > But ??once we are back to the development of a concrete > Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact that, for > any child to participate in human forms of object-oriented > activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented > activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular > organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into those > forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category > devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with > the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you describe, is > this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, or is > it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? > > > > > > As moderator, I should stop there and let others answer > (which I hope some do). > > > > As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: > > > > > > Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in > ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of teaching > deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this > is only possible through *involvement* in collective > activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary > over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is > only possible in and through object-oriented activity). > But then, is not the teaching, the instructional aspect of > the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to > this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this > object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all > those attributes that you just called 'spiritually > uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such > activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get > collective activity without them? On this, and precisely > in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of Man", > Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in that > case that communication is included in activity and is its > essential component: without relation to another > person(s), activity is impossible'? (144). Although I not > always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I can't > see how he can be wrong. > > > > > > So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of > reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the > category of object-oriented activity, is most primary. Let > me also note that ?there are other authors who have > developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you > discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on > French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom > affectivity is the concrete 'essence of auto-affection' ( > https://www.amazon.com/ Incarnation-Philosophy- Studies-Phenomenology- Existential/dp/0810131269 > ) > > > > > > As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I wonder > whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity > and communication. Is not the distinction just an artefact > of a partial understanding of what it means activity and > what it means communicating. I still feel that > communication, in the sense of addressivity that Mikhailov > describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for > semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity > precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't > get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps > naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication > that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in > the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I > don't see how any practical activity can have any sense > (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. > Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are > talking about; one machines could perform on their own > without consciousness. ? > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________ __ > > From: Alexander Surmava > > > Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > ; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo > Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole > > Subject: Object oriented activity and communication > > > > Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > > The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, > touching on the most fundamental categories. But before > proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica > aside) :-) > > Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is > conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, > based on the general principles accepted in its framework > and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a > common, unifying conception are usually considered the > theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. > Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions > reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the > interpretation of these concepts. > > For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle > of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible > with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is > possible to consider both objective activity and > communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe > for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to > these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? > > I am convinced that without answering these and similar > fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry > and without answering them in the most general form, we > are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this > leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, > returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical > grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that > instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, > based on which we can practically solve socially > significant problems, let us say, create a consistently > democratic education system, we draw everyone to the > interesting only for us theoretical > verbiage > about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical > problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between > Vygotsky and Leontiev. > > Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too > to reflect on how to help find the path to education and > culture for the children of poor migrants from Central > Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > > > > Agitprop > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? sticks > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? in my teeth too, > > and I?d rather > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? compose > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? romances for you - > > more profit in it > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? and more charm. > > But I > >? ? ? ? subdued > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? myself, > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? setting my heel > > on the throat > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of my own song. > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Vladimir Mayakovski > > > > ? ??? > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????? ?????, > > ? ??? ?? > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????? ?? ??? ? > > ???????? ??? > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????. > > ?? ? > >? ? ? ? ???? > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????, > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????????? > > ?? ????? > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????? ?????. > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? ?????????? > > > > > > Among other things, such an over and over again forced > return to the very foundation makes it difficult to > understand even these very basics, for it forces us to > return to the most abstract level all the time, literally > stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract > to the concrete. > > Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions > about how to understand the principle of interaction as > such and about the relationship of object oriented > activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer > them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed > answers to these questions have been formulated by me in > my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF > LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian > ???????? ?????? ???????????? > ???????????? . > Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the > principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is > available in English. It was even sent in published in > English international journal... but for some strange > reason was not published then or later. > > So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, > especially since I can answer by quoting my old text > https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS. > > But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to > repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction > of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case > be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two > ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach > should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my > opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should > not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious > that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the > type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the > mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object > oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing > with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic > of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? > ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the > terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" > is also an interaction, but that is its highest, > essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism > type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense > that one can not in principle separate out its active and > passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in > the process of positing of an object one side is active, > subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There > are many interesting differences between them, but let us > return to this somehow later. > > In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation > work of 1988: > > ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation > can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two > objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken > abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is > neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It > receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to > spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) > ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? > imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant > leaves (with his telescope). > > That is to say that living, active or predmet relation > as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously > acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital activity. > > Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, > or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not > spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. > Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not > determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with > accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. > Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not > just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be > conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism > itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing > indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into > contact with its living subjectivity. To put it > differently, we can find not the slightest trace of > predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive relation.? > > Now about the object oriented activity and > communication, and it does not matter whether in the > verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's > "addressing" to another person. > > Which of these two categories should be considered > primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to > discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness > (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and > remains the central problem of theoretical psychology > associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and Ilyenkov. > > To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want > to build scientific psychology in accordance with the > famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the > concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers > believed that the method of ascent, the method of > "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to > ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical > discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one > thing - either activity or communication. And at first > glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a > Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course > sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic > coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human > essence is no abstraction inherent in each single > individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the > social relations.. " > > And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's > view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely > scientific psychology consisted only in the need to > reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology > with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then > the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely > difficult situation, because the classics left us with > different meanings on this topic and with which of them it > is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, > and with which in the second, it would still have to be > solved by ourselves. > > So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this > issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A > group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was AN > Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly > belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented > activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second > and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of > Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was inclined to > formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, > "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" > were for communication. > > Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our > reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal > reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our > current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a > direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the > classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something > rather indecent. > > The end of the discussion between supporters of > "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also > characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, > convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing > the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was > dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was > expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of > director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of > Leontief's psychology department was appointed a > well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader > Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in > the ideological department of the Central Committee of > CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific > "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in > Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the > Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed? supporters > of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's > short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE > could not reverse the situation too. > > Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to > "communication" and "activity." > > If we want to make our choice of the initial category, > without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us > as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will > choose the one of the two categories from which one can > derive the entire diversity of human life, including > another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that > such an initial category can only be object-oriented > activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the > latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from > communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such > spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or > object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. > > And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact > realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive > Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and > the entire affective sphere associated with it is first > generated by objective activity at the most basic level, > in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic > of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course > of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. > And, finally, it demonstrates how the external > reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, > together and practically producing their own lives, > assumes a specifically human character, being a > reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. > > We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" > communication and the affective side of life are taken not > as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of > which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as > necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s > REFLEXIVE side. > > The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my > diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a > Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the > relation of objective activity and "communication". In the > same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, > the active relation of the subject to the object and to > itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, > indeed, any other, psychology. > > ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????, > ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, > ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, > ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? > https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS > ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. > > The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable > place for introducing such fundamental concepts, > therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the > notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large > English text > https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS > and read it to the end :-). > > ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? > ???????????? > > ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? > ??????????? ???????? > https://www.avramus.com/app/ download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 > . > > Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > > The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, > touching on the most fundamental categories. But before > proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica > aside) :-) > > Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is > conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, > based on the general principles accepted in its framework > and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a > common, unifying conception are usually considered the > theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. > Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions > reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the > interpretation of these concepts. > > For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle > of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible > with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is > possible to consider both objective activity and > communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe > for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to > these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? > > I am convinced that without answering these and similar > fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry > and without answering them in the most general form, we > are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this > leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, > returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical > grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that > instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, > based on which we can practically solve socially > significant problems, let us say, create a consistently > democratic education system, we draw everyone to the > interesting only for us theoretical > verbiage > about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical > problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between > Vygotsky and Leontiev. > > Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too > to reflect on how to help find the path to education and > culture for the children of poor migrants from Central > Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > > > > Agitprop > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? sticks > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? in my teeth too, > > and I?d rather > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? compose > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? romances for you - > > more profit in it > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? and more charm. > > But I > >? ? ? ? subdued > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? myself, > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? setting my heel > > on the throat > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of my own song. > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Vladimir Mayakovski > > > > ? ??? > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????? ?????, > > ? ??? ?? > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????? ?? ??? ? > > ???????? ??? > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????. > > ?? ? > >? ? ? ? ???? > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????, > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????????? > > ?? ????? > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????? ?????. > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? ?????????? > > > > > > Among other things, such an over and over again forced > return to the very foundation makes it difficult to > understand even these very basics, for it forces us to > return to the most abstract level all the time, literally > stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract > to the concrete. > > Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions > about how to understand the principle of interaction as > such and about the relationship of object oriented > activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer > them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed > answers to these questions have been formulated by me in > my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF > LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian > ???????? ?????? ???????????? > ???????????? . > Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the > principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is > available in English. It was even sent in published in > English international journal... but for some strange > reason was not published then or later. > > So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, > especially since I can answer by quoting my old text > https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS. > > But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to > repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction > of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case > be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two > ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach > should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my > opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should > not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious > that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the > type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the > mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object > oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing > with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic > of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? > ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the > terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" > is also an interaction, but that is its highest, > essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism > type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense > that one can not in principle separate out its active and > passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in > the process of positing of an object one side is active, > subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There > are many interesting differences between them, but let us > return to this somehow later. > > In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation > work of 1988: > > ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation > can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two > objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken > abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is > neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It > receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to > spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) > ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? > imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant > leaves (with his telescope). > > That is to say that living, active or predmet relation > as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously > acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital activity. > > Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, > or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not > spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. > Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not > determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with > accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. > Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not > just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be > conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism > itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing > indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into > contact with its living subjectivity. To put it > differently, we can find not the slightest trace of > predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive relation.? > > Now about the object oriented activity and > communication, and it does not matter whether in the > verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's > "addressing" to another person. > > Which of these two categories should be considered > primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to > discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness > (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and > remains the central problem of theoretical psychology > associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and Ilyenkov. > > To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want > to build scientific psychology in accordance with the > famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the > concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers > believed that the method of ascent, the method of > "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to > ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical > discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one > thing - either activity or communication. And at first > glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a > Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course > sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic > coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human > essence is no abstraction inherent in each single > individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the > social relations.. " > > And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's > view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely > scientific psychology consisted only in the need to > reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology > with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then > the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely > difficult situation, because the classics left us with > different meanings on this topic and with which of them it > is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, > and with which in the second, it would still have to be > solved by ourselves. > > > > So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this > issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A > group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was > Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly > belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented > activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second > and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas > a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was > inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other > words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas > "Leningraders" were for "communication". > > Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our > reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a literal > reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our > current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a > direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the > classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something > rather indecent. > > > > The end of the discussion between supporters of > "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also > characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, > convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing > the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was > dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was > expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of > director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of > Leontief's psychology department was appointed a > well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader > Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in > the ideological department of the Central Committee of > CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific > "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in > Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the > Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed? supporters > of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's > short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE > could not reverse the situation too. > > > > Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to > "communication" and "activity." > > If we want to make our choice of the initial category, > without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us > as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will > choose the one of the two categories from which one can > derive the entire diversity of human life, including > another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that > such an initial category can only be object-oriented > activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the > object oriented activity, which is an attribute property > of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, > empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we > will never get life or object oriented activity even with > the greatest diligence. > > > > And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact > realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive > Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and > the entire affective sphere associated with it is first > generated by objective activity at the most basic level, > in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic > of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course > of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. > > And, finally, it demonstrates how the external > reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, > together and practically producing their own lives, > assumes a specifically human character, being a > reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. > > > > We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" > communication and the affective side of life are taken not > as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of > which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as > necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s > REFLEXIVE side. > > > > The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my diploma > thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist > theoretical solution to the question of the relation of > objective activity and "communication". In the same time, > reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active > relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is > the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, > any other, psychology. > > The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable > place for introducing such fundamental concepts, > therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the > notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large > English text > https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS > and read it to the end :-). > > > > The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? > ???????????? > > > > Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short > English one > https://www.avramus.com/app/ download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. > > > > Sasha > > > > > > > > From ablunden@mira.net Sat Oct 14 17:49:27 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 11:49:27 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <460E2F0E-C30B-4769-BA66-A0EEE64722CF@uniandes.edu.co> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <625D941E-F734-490F-841C-3FA7E842300F@uniandes.edu.co> <0a391135-ee3f-7bb3-8913-33b694772778@mira.net> <460E2F0E-C30B-4769-BA66-A0EEE64722CF@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: <16f16d65-b632-0317-6326-727281265de2@mira.net> I provided Progress translations of three different passages from A N Leontyev, Martin, which shows that the translating is quite consistent. Here's a very interesting translation from JREEP by his son A A Leontyev. Note that I have inserted an indefinite article where it is absolutely necessary to make good English: Throughout, even within the framework of activity theory itself, an ambiguous understanding of the units and levels of activity organization can be seen. ... As is well known, A.N. Leontyev does not provide an explicit definition of it; as a rule, he puts the term ?unit? within quotation marks, and in so doing, ?determines? it. And this is justified: after all, as it applies to his point of view, the concept of unit has little applicability to activity, action, or operation, since it presumes their /discrete /nature. ... In A.N. Leontyev?s conception, the only thing that can be called a ?unit? in the strict sense is [an] activity (an activity act). [?an? inserted by AB.] As you know Martin, I have written incessantly on this topic, but this is a more comprehensive treatment of A N Leontyev's system which covers this issue as well as trying to bring out his extremely original and valuable contribution to science. http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Leontyev%20and%20Social%20Theory.pdf Andy The source for the above quote is Leontyev, A. A. (2006) ??Units? and Levels of Activity,?/Journal of Russian and East European Psychology/, vol. 44, no. 3: 30-46, M. E. Sharpe. Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 15/10/2017 4:05 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > Translation courtesy of my friend Google, Andy. > > I am confused: which is the Progress Publishers translation? You seem to have posted two. > > Martin > >> On Oct 13, 2017, at 9:34 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >> This is the Progress Publishers translation, Martin: >> >> Activity is a molar, not an additive unit of the life of >> the physical, material subject. In a narrower sense, >> that is, at the psychological level, it is a unit of >> life, mediated by psychic reflection, the real function >> of which is that it orients the subject in the objective >> world. In other words, activity is not a reaction and >> not a totality of reactions but a system that has >> structure, its own internal transitions and >> transformations, its own development. >> >> I presume what you posted was your own? >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 14/10/2017 1:17 PM, Martin John Packer wrote: >>> Activity is a molar, not an additive unit of life >>> corporal, material subject. In a more narrow sense, >>> those. at the psychological level, this is a unit of life, >>> mediated by mental reflection, the real function >>> which consists in the fact that it orientates the subject in >>> objective world. In other words, the activity is not >>> reaction and not a set of reactions, but a system that has >>> structure, its internal transitions and transformations, its development. >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 7:53 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >>>> >>>> This is the opening paragraph of ch. 3, s. 2 of????????????. >>>> ????????. ???????? >>>> >>>> ???????????? ???? ????????, ?? ?????????? ??????? ????? >>>> ?????????, ????????????? ????????. ? ????? ????? ??????, >>>> ?.?. ?? ??????????????? ??????, ??? ??????? ?????, >>>> ?????????????? ??????????? ??????????, ???????? ??????? >>>> ???????? ??????? ? ???, ??? ??? ??????????? ???????? ? >>>> ?????????? ????. ????? ???????, ???????????? ? ??? ?? >>>> ??????? ? ?? ???????????? ???????, ? ???????, ??????? >>>> ????????, ???? ?????????? ???????? ? ???????????, ???? ????????. >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> On 14/10/2017 11:36 AM, mike cole wrote: >>>>> Thanks for being so concrete, Andy. >>>>> Could someone post the Russian text next to the English so >>>>> that it is possible to compare it with the translation? I >>>>> spent several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development >>>>> of Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally >>>>> defeated me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra >>>>> rubles in my pocket. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us a >>>>> "true" translation. >>>>> >>>>> mike >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The Progress Publishers English translation of >>>>> "Activity and >>>>> Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of >>>>> Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: >>>>> >>>>> Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, >>>>> material life of the material subject. In the narrower >>>>> sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a >>>>> unit of >>>>> life, mediated by mental reflection, by >>>>> an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the >>>>> subject in the objective world. >>>>> >>>>> In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The >>>>> Development of Mind" we have: >>>>> >>>>> Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an >>>>> organism?s activity; the different activities that realise >>>>> its diverse vital relations with the surrounding >>>>> reality are >>>>> essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore >>>>> differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively >>>>> different] types of activity according to the >>>>> difference in >>>>> their objects. >>>>> >>>>> By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses >>>>> "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has >>>>> been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for >>>>> English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean >>>>> simply >>>>> "category." The second does the same, but in addition >>>>> makes >>>>> it evident that the plural does not refer to different >>>>> activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the >>>>> possibility of forming a true concept of activity >>>>> altogether. >>>>> >>>>> With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is >>>>> simply that "such an initial *category* can only be >>>>> object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing >>>>> that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, >>>>> even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. >>>>> >>>>> Andy >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>> >>>>> On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: >>>>>> Dear Andy! >>>>>> I am glad that our communication was resumed after many >>>>>> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and >>>>> files >>>>>> and found that the problem of "object oriented >>>>> activity OR >>>>>> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before >>>>>> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is >>>>> serious and >>>>>> it deserves to return to it today. >>>>>> Last year I was close to being silent forever. >>>>>> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed >>>>>> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the >>>>>> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my >>>>>> theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my >>>>>> descendants :-). >>>>>> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not >>>>>> understand your question. What means the distinction >>>>>> between singular and plural number in your remark? Could >>>>>> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the >>>>>> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my >>>>>> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, >>>>>> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of >>>>>> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my >>>>> dissertation >>>>>> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's >>>>> "Theory of >>>>>> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, >>>>>> having understood the theoretic meaning of your >>>>> claims to >>>>>> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily >>>>>> understand the essence of your objections to me. >>>>>> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I >>>>>> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a >>>>>> particular empirical case of its manifestation. >>>>> Therefore, >>>>>> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just >>>>> like >>>>>> Matter, Nature, or Substance. >>>>>> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come >>>>> across >>>>>> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its >>>>>> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the >>>>>> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old >>>>>> philosophers and that only the numerous individual >>>>> "atomic >>>>>> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really >>>>>> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar >>>>>> positivism and empiricism. >>>>>> However, all of this may not apply to your position ... >>>>>> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. >>>>>> Best wishes >>>>>> Sasha >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden >>>>>> > ?????(?): >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll ask Sasha a question. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial >>>>>> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it >>>>> stands, >>>>>> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be >>>>> that you >>>>>> are translating it from a Russian statement that is >>>>> correct. >>>>>> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in >>>>> when I >>>>>> say "every activity has an object." But in your >>>>> expression >>>>>> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural >>>>> and unless >>>>>> you are a religious person is not something which >>>>> can have a >>>>>> specific object. All English translations of A N >>>>> Leontyev >>>>>> make this mistake which has caused no end of >>>>> confusion among >>>>>> English-speakers. >>>>>> >>>>>> Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," >>>>> just as >>>>>> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." >>>>>> >>>>>> Andy >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>> >>>>>> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>>>>>> Dear Sasha, all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding >>>>>> response. I think you are right in your assertion >>>>> that we >>>>>> are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of >>>>>> CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. >>>>> However, one >>>>>> can see in the lack of response by other members?? that >>>>>> not everyone has the privilege of the time it >>>>> requires to >>>>>> go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing >>>>>> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce >>>>> and I >>>>>> hope it is/will be appreciated as such. >>>>>>> If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I >>>>> quote >>>>>> from your response: >>>>>>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial >>>>> category, >>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then >>>>> for us >>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication >>>>> from the >>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" >>>>>>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework >>>>>> according to which we are looking of the most original >>>>>> germ cell, the one from which all others can be >>>>>> developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I >>>>>> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree >>>>> on that. >>>>>>> But ??once we are back to the development of a >>>>> concrete >>>>>> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact >>>>> that, for >>>>>> any child to participate in human forms of >>>>> object-oriented >>>>>> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented >>>>>> activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular >>>>>> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into >>>>> those >>>>>> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category >>>>>> devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with >>>>>> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you >>>>> describe, is >>>>>> this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, >>>>> or is >>>>>> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? >>>>>>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others >>>>> answer >>>>>> (which I hope some do). >>>>>>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in >>>>>> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of >>>>> teaching >>>>>> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this >>>>>> is only possible through *involvement* in collective >>>>>> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary >>>>>> over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is >>>>>> only possible in and through object-oriented activity). >>>>>> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional >>>>> aspect of >>>>>> the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to >>>>>> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this >>>>>> object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all >>>>>> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually >>>>>> uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such >>>>>> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get >>>>>> collective activity without them? On this, and precisely >>>>>> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of >>>>> Man", >>>>>> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in >>>>> that >>>>>> case that communication is included in activity and >>>>> is its >>>>>> essential component: without relation to another >>>>>> person(s), activity is impossible' (144). Although >>>>> I not >>>>>> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I >>>>> can't >>>>>> see how he can be wrong. >>>>>>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of >>>>>> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the >>>>>> category of object-oriented activity, is most >>>>> primary. Let >>>>>> me also note that ?there are other authors who have >>>>>> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you >>>>>> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on >>>>>> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom >>>>>> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of >>>>> auto-affection' ( >>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Incarnation-Philosophy-Studies-Phenomenology-Existential/dp/0810131269 >>>>> >>>>>> ) >>>>>>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I >>>>> wonder >>>>>> whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity >>>>>> and communication. Is not the distinction just an >>>>> artefact >>>>>> of a partial understanding of what it means activity and >>>>>> what it means communicating. I still feel that >>>>>> communication, in the sense of addressivity that >>>>> Mikhailov >>>>>> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for >>>>>> semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity >>>>>> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't >>>>>> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps >>>>>> naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication >>>>>> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in >>>>>> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I >>>>>> don't see how any practical activity can have any sense >>>>>> (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. >>>>>> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are >>>>>> talking about; one machines could perform on their own >>>>>> without consciousness. ? >>>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>> From: Alexander Surmava >>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 >>>>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo >>>>>> Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole >>>>>>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more >>>>> interesting, >>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? >>>>> (replica >>>>>> aside) :-) >>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical >>>>> approach, >>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its >>>>> framework >>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our >>>>> discussions >>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the >>>>> principle >>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism >>>>> compatible >>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, >>>>> it is >>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>>>>> these two principles something third, say - >>>>> "subjectness"? >>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and >>>>> similar >>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our >>>>> inquiry >>>>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. >>>>> But this >>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological >>>>> theory, >>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical >>>>>> >>>>> verbiage>>>> > >>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions >>>>> between >>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for >>>>> me too >>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>>>>> Agitprop >>>>>>> sticks >>>>>>> in my teeth too, >>>>>>> and I?d rather >>>>>>> compose >>>>>>> romances for you - >>>>>>> more profit in it >>>>>>> and more charm. >>>>>>> But I >>>>>>> subdued >>>>>>> myself, >>>>>>> setting my heel >>>>>>> on the throat >>>>>>> of my own song. >>>>>>> Vladimir Mayakovski >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? ??? >>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>> ? ????? ?????, >>>>>>> ? ??? ?? >>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>> ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>>>>> ???????? ??? >>>>>>> ? ??????????. >>>>>>> ?? ? >>>>>>> ???? >>>>>>> ??????, >>>>>>> ????????? >>>>>>> ?? ????? >>>>>>> ??????????? ?????. >>>>>>> ???????? ?????????? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, >>>>> literally >>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the >>>>> abstract >>>>>> to the concrete. >>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting >>>>> questions >>>>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>> >>>>> ????????????>>>> >. >>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange >>>>>> reason was not published then or later. >>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>>>>> >>>>> https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>> . >>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the >>>>> interaction >>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no >>>>> case >>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic >>>>> of the >>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not >>>>> dealing >>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the >>>>> logic >>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, >>>>> "positing" >>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its >>>>> active and >>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic >>>>> interaction, in >>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, but >>>>> let us >>>>>> return to this somehow later. >>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>>>>> work of 1988: >>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun >>>>> taken >>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >>>>> activity. >>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive >>>>> relation, >>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism >>>>> does not >>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the >>>>> organism >>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >>>>> relation.? >>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>>>>> "addressing" to another person. >>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to >>>>> try to >>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has >>>>> been and >>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >>>>> Ilyenkov. >>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If >>>>> we want >>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to >>>>> choose one >>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the >>>>> human >>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>>>>> social relations.. " >>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical >>>>> psychology >>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, >>>>> then >>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of >>>>> them it >>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>>>>> solved by ourselves. >>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader >>>>> was AN >>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, >>>>> second >>>>>> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a >>>>> group of >>>>>> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was >>>>> inclined to >>>>>> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, >>>>>> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" >>>>>> were for communication. >>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>>>>> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal >>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered >>>>> something >>>>>> rather indecent. >>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by >>>>> organizing >>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>>>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of >>>>> scientific >>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters >>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>>>>> "communication" and "activity." >>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then >>>>> for us >>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication >>>>> from the >>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. >>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but >>>>> a fact >>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex >>>>> dialectic >>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the >>>>> course >>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive >>>>> Activity" >>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are >>>>> taken not >>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my >>>>>> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a >>>>>> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the >>>>>> relation of objective activity and "communication". >>>>> In the >>>>>> same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, >>>>>> the active relation of the subject to the object and to >>>>>> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the >>>>> human, as, >>>>>> indeed, any other, psychology. >>>>>>> ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? >>>>> ????, >>>>>> ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, >>>>>> ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, >>>>>> ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? >>>>>> >>>>> https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>> >>>>>> ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. >>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most >>>>> suitable >>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem >>>>> of the >>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>>>>> English text >>>>>> >>>>> https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>> >>>>>> and read it to the end :-). >>>>>>> ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND >>>>> HUMAN >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? >>>>> ???????????? >>>>> ????????????>>>> > >>>>>>> ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? >>>>>> ??????????? ???????? >>>>>> >>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 >>>>> >>>>>> . >>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more >>>>> interesting, >>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? >>>>> (replica >>>>>> aside) :-) >>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical >>>>> approach, >>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its >>>>> framework >>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our >>>>> discussions >>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the >>>>> principle >>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism >>>>> compatible >>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, >>>>> it is >>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>>>>> these two principles something third, say - >>>>> "subjectness"? >>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and >>>>> similar >>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our >>>>> inquiry >>>>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. >>>>> But this >>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological >>>>> theory, >>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical >>>>>> >>>>> verbiage>>>> > >>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions >>>>> between >>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for >>>>> me too >>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>>>>> Agitprop >>>>>>> sticks >>>>>>> in my teeth too, >>>>>>> and I?d rather >>>>>>> compose >>>>>>> romances for you - >>>>>>> more profit in it >>>>>>> and more charm. >>>>>>> But I >>>>>>> subdued >>>>>>> myself, >>>>>>> setting my heel >>>>>>> on the throat >>>>>>> of my own song. >>>>>>> Vladimir Mayakovski >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? ??? >>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>> ? ????? ?????, >>>>>>> ? ??? ?? >>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>> ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>>>>> ???????? ??? >>>>>>> ? ??????????. >>>>>>> ?? ? >>>>>>> ???? >>>>>>> ??????, >>>>>>> ????????? >>>>>>> ?? ????? >>>>>>> ??????????? ?????. >>>>>>> ???????? ?????????? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, >>>>> literally >>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the >>>>> abstract >>>>>> to the concrete. >>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting >>>>> questions >>>>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>> >>>>> ????????????>>>> >. >>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange >>>>>> reason was not published then or later. >>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>>>>> >>>>> https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>> . >>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the >>>>> interaction >>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no >>>>> case >>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic >>>>> of the >>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not >>>>> dealing >>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the >>>>> logic >>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, >>>>> "positing" >>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its >>>>> active and >>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic >>>>> interaction, in >>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, but >>>>> let us >>>>>> return to this somehow later. >>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>>>>> work of 1988: >>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun >>>>> taken >>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >>>>> activity. >>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive >>>>> relation, >>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism >>>>> does not >>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the >>>>> organism >>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >>>>> relation.? >>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>>>>> "addressing" to another person. >>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to >>>>> try to >>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has >>>>> been and >>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >>>>> Ilyenkov. >>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If >>>>> we want >>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to >>>>> choose one >>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the >>>>> human >>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>>>>> social relations.. " >>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical >>>>> psychology >>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, >>>>> then >>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of >>>>> them it >>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>>>>> solved by ourselves. >>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was >>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, >>>>> second >>>>>> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", >>>>> whereas >>>>>> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was >>>>>> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other >>>>>> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas >>>>>> "Leningraders" were for "communication". >>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>>>>> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a >>>>> literal >>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered >>>>> something >>>>>> rather indecent. >>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by >>>>> organizing >>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>>>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of >>>>> scientific >>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters >>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>>>>> "communication" and "activity." >>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then >>>>> for us >>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication >>>>> from the >>>>>> object oriented activity, which is an attribute property >>>>>> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, >>>>>> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we >>>>>> will never get life or object oriented activity even >>>>> with >>>>>> the greatest diligence. >>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but >>>>> a fact >>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex >>>>> dialectic >>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the >>>>> course >>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive >>>>> Activity" >>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are >>>>> taken not >>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my >>>>> diploma >>>>>> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist >>>>>> theoretical solution to the question of the relation of >>>>>> objective activity and "communication". In the same >>>>> time, >>>>>> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active >>>>>> relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is >>>>>> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, >>>>>> any other, psychology. >>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most >>>>> suitable >>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem >>>>> of the >>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>>>>> English text >>>>>> >>>>> https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>> >>>>>> and read it to the end :-). >>>>>>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND >>>>> HUMAN >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? >>>>> ???????????? >>>>> ????????????>>>> > >>>>>>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short >>>>>> English one >>>>>> >>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 >>>>> . >>>>>>> Sasha >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>> > > > From annalisa@unm.edu Sat Oct 14 18:42:02 2017 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 01:42:02 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate In-Reply-To: <1507801208304.22328@iped.uio.no> References: <1507462271698.29592@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F93888181D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX05.osuad.osu.edu> <1507583473996.60088@iped.uio.no>, , , <1507801208304.22328@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Hi Alfredo and wonderful others, My apologies for my late response. It is heartening to learn your thoughts about a different act of publishing on XMCA, and while not identical to the scientific peer review model, does offer an important contribution to many on this list (and off) toward valuable development of academic thought among peers. Below, I say nothing about which no one already knows. Perhaps (and I say this a little tongue in cheek) it is the "oleophilic peer review" model, in that it greases the gears of peer-creation, "affiliation, membership, credentials" and other milestones of academic life; it is as you say "a whole other thing all together." I also suggest that the listserv offers us a kind of X-ray vision of how things can transpire, since interactions in the posts, although not total, do provide us breadcrumbs on how little interactions develop and can create larger ones that in turn inspire more formal turns of events that then manifest into scientific peer-reviewed journal articles and books and other expressions of research. Such interactions happened in academic discourse before the list existed, and surely off the list as well, but in particular, I think what it does illustrate is the power of collaboration in the form of discourse in its most free-form and unfettered expression, especially when featuring the of best intentions and unambiguous respect to all interlocutors. It shows the best of what we all can do as a society, despite our differences in philosophies and worldviews. I am also writing this while Hollywood is imploding from The Revealing White Robe: how a genealogy of a pathology, stretching decades, borne from a single individual can promulgate individual silent vectors that culminate in a deafening censorship of cultural expression for as much as 50% of the population. Also how so many people are also finally being called on the Red Carpet for their complicity to feed the beast inside that robe. From there, we can start to wonder what sort of movies might have been made without this toxicity. Let's just say, we know very well what happens when it goes wrong. But what about when it goes right? At its best, XMCA can afford for equality of voices, if only because the only real criteria outside of subscribing to the listserv, possessing a burning interest in the discussions, and honoring Very Obvious Netiquette, everyone is welcome. Everyone. Even though the list possesses affiliation with a university, there is no requirement to be formally affiliated with a university to subscribe to the list. Thank goodness for that. There is also nothing in the technology embodied as a email text message that should filter out or exclude anyone's contribution, except to have access to a computer I suppose and at this point to have some fluency in English. Everyone can have a voice, in theory and in practice. Where we go wrong is when there are cultural pathologies that manifest their genealogies and people who would like to speak don't, or won't, because who wants to live with pollution? That is when we lose and that is what is difficult to qualify, like all those movies we will never see because there are so few great women directors (and other folks who are under-represented), and so few great stories told about women's experiences (and other folks who are under-represented). But now we get into the distribution, which has a value for any one contributor who wants to be read, but moreso a desire to engage with minds who are open to an exchange of ideas. We want to know what others think about what we think. Is this a good idea? Is it a new idea? is it a futile one? or what about...? Then, it's that reply that we are delighted to find in the inbox, and the level of interest and the understanding that there was connection and reflection if only for hitting the send button. As humans, that seems to be how we are wired, to find such engagement satisfying. It's not just for academics. Hoping this is not pedantic, I'd offer XMCA's First Use is discussion of academic topics (more specifically those germane to MCA topics, as it is not just any list), and distribution of texts is Last Use (whether copyrighted or not), say when someone is seeking a text that is difficult to find or esoteric, you know, for example, papers concerning Vygotsky and metacognition! :) If any copyrighted work is distributed through the list (and isn't all work copyrighted?) then this act of distribution is to bolster this first use and not the last. I suggest that this coupling of first, last, and everything in between (or perhaps I should say chaining) is what sparks our discussion, in the same way a campfire starts conversations (which is just the burning of wood, the pulp of which paper is made): The static text (in the form of a journal article or book) becomes fuel for what can be said about it. No one here comes for copies of the text like a college student might have gone to Napster in the 90s, to download and then leave. List members come for the discussion about the texts, or better, for the questions, answers, and ideas that the discussions generate. The texts might not have even been read, even though it helps the discussion to do the homework and do the reading as soon as you can sure. This First Use, as far as I can tell, is legally sanctioned by copyright fair use and, as I've already said, it helps provide wider access that might not otherwise provide exposure to a wider readership, which does begin the roundabout virtuous spiral of distribution and cultural sharing, more distribution and more cultural sharing (and we hope more publishing too). This form of free speech we enjoy is our act of cultural sharing, like singing of a song (whether in the shower or while snapping down the street), and what the contents are of that speech determine what sort of culture is there. Our culture happens to be mind, culture, and activity, which is actually a kind of metacognition about culture (reference to the Braten paper is intentional!) To restrict the chopping of wood would mean no campfires could be started, and no blazing beacons could be found on the coastlines of the internet, resulting in very mechanical and non-dynamic exchanges where nothing new and exciting could be discovered, or there might even be crashing on dark shores of ships run aground. I'm not sure if these metaphors are doing their jobs. I hope so. So, yeah, that is why these publishers who are going after Research Gate are really getting it wrong. Of course, when it comes to attribution and copyright, I am curious when an author can and cannot legitimately request a work not be distributed on a list if it is executed in the boundaries of fair use? It's certainly polite to ask and a genuine courtesy we would all want, but is there a greater loss to society when a text cannot be shared? Do we all miss out on something for all those unpublished writings by J. D. Salinger? Or how about the Oxyrhynchus Papyri? I don't know. How can we know? Some publishers would just call this trash! They certainly aren't squabbling over that, and why not? :) Kind regards, Annalisa From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Sat Oct 14 18:43:31 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 01:43:31 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> , <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1508031811757.59125@iped.uio.no> Dear Haydi, all, I'd like to comment on the second part (paragraph) of your post, for it mentions 'communication', which we've been discussing in later posts. For it keeps looking as if we were having to choose between activity or communication, or as if the opposition between activity and communication was to be solved by taking one side to win. Sasha was clear: when the question concerns which category is most primary so that the one can be derived from the other, then we can't but agree with him that 'from communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or object oriented activity with the greatest diligence'. Yet, in a previous post I was raising the problem (which may be only my problem and so not really a real problem) that I cannot think of any object-oriented (reflexive) activity that itself is not constituted in and through a communicative act. Of course, if you think of communicative acts as only developed human speech, as you seem to suggest in your mentions of 'wording' and 'structure sentence', then the solution is clear: the latter are only derivative. You mention word meaning as a unit of consciousness as problematic as well. All three mentions seemed to be subsumed under the rubric: it is not communication, but activity! And of course, if we insist on assuming we mean communicating stripped from activity, or somehow opposed to it, then all that makes sense. But a whole different thing would be to think of communicative acts as synonymous with 'acting in a manner adequate to an object', which is nothing other than the Spinozist definition of object-orientedness and of Sasha's reflexive activity. And that is the way that I think other non-strictly marxist thinkers, like Gregory Bateson, were conceiving their way to a monist theory of mind as nature. Now, this may sound like a forced shift in language, in the words we'd like to use to refer to the same object-orientedness; why call something communication when reflexive activity may be a better term for it? In fact, a clear and very convincing advantage of the later term is that it has been developed through a critique to a concept upon which some of the deepest problems of dualism in psychology have been grounded: irritability. But the very later notion and in fact the very stimulus - response scheme can perfectly be and have been used as model for theories of communication. I am going to suggest two possible advantages of having the word communication (or, to use Sasha's formulation other 'spiritually uplifting' terms such as Mikhailov's adressivity) as a 'synonym' (if this terminology can be employed) rather than as a derivative category with respect to object-orientedness; and I am going to do so with the honest confusion that I am very unsure this can work (but hey, it is only putting myself at risk of being completely wrong that I can hope to grow right). The first would be that we may then be able to stop quarrelling about communication versus activity and instead force ourselves making a choice between pursuing a Spinozist monist dialetical psychology, or a dualist one, for it would be this, and not a real division between practical activity and communicative activity, what needed to be discerned. The second advantage may be that, in that case, we could try revising rather than dismissing Vygotsky's legacy in the Spinozist terms that he never had the time to pursue himself. For then many of the psychologist's brilliant ideas about speech and development that so many of us find helpful when we deal with actual problems of psychological development (as educators, as researchers, as workers, as members of organisations), could be redefined so as to be consistent with reflexive activity without leading to problematic scissions between organic life and cultural life. Hoping that this gets us closer rather than further apart, Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? Sent: 15 October 2017 00:24 To: mike cole; EXtended Mind Culture Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Dear Mike, Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an activist for his concreteness and clarifications is crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes , Parts , and Moments. He personally provided us with examples from Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they convert Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced with the same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most valuable contribution) does not begin with the individual case in isolation which phenomenologically speaking (in contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not obtained because one instance is considered detached from all relations and its subservience to the service of the Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is particular in some feature/s. And these particulars are essential. With other particulars in other individuals they are related actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense , this whole could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life itself. Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is , with category and concept only therefore , following Marx and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again on his feet (not that the firmament to that time did put "idea" on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on their heads but to put them again headstand thinking and acting with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just with their brains. Then taking all options in translation even that of a Machine into consideration it does not seem to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of activities thereafter. These activities are those arising from the properties of versatile objects in turn arising from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual activities as moments with the broadest idea of the Monistic Substantial Modes or Stat es in Philosophical terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn integrate and are dissolved into Monism of Substance. Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one Substance) is already there with the organism actively and spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own , positioning its due object and moving along its contours and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to itself , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with a huge gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of consciousness , now apparently ascending to "wording" and "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration) further "communication" as something indispensable and necessary and inevitable to the realization of life affairs. Best Haydi From: mike cole To: Andy Blunden ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Cc: Alexander Surmava ; ivan-dgf ; Ivan Uemlianin ; Haydi Zulfei Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50 Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.Could someone post the Russian text next to the English so that it is possible to compare it with the translation? I spent several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally defeated me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra rubles in my pocket. Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us a "true" translation. mike On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: The Progress Publishers English translation of "Activity and Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, material life of the material subject. In the narrower sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a unit of life, mediated by mental reflection, by an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the subject in the objective world. In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The Development of Mind" we have: Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an organism?s activity; the different activities that realise its diverse vital relations with the surrounding reality are essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively different] types of activity according to the difference in their objects. By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean simply "category." The second does the same, but in addition makes it evident that the plural does not refer to different activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the possibility of forming a true concept of activity altogether. With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is simply that "such an initial *category* can only be object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. Andy ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics. org/ablunden/index.htm On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: > Dear Andy! > I am glad that our communication was resumed after many > years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and files > and found that the problem of "object oriented activity OR > communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before > our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is serious and > it deserves to return to it today. > Last year I was close to being silent forever. > Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed > this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the > opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my > theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my > descendants :-). > I will begin with honest recognition that I do not > understand your question. What means the distinction > between singular and plural number in your remark? Could > you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the > Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my > concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, > moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of > reflexive activity" (that is the title of my dissertation > work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's "Theory of > Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, > having understood the theoretic meaning of your claims to > AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily > understand the essence of your objections to me. > In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I > view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a > particular empirical case of its manifestation. Therefore, > object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just like > Matter, Nature, or Substance. > Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come across > only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its > innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the > conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old > philosophers and that only the numerous individual "atomic > facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really > exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar > positivism and empiricism. > However, all of this may not apply to your position ... > I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. > Best wishes > Sasha > > > > ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden > ?????(?): > > > I'll ask Sasha a question. > > Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial > category can only be object-oriented activity" as it stands, > in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be that you > are translating it from a Russian statement that is correct. > Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in when I > say "every activity has an object."? But in your expression > above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and unless > you are a religious person is not something which can have a > specific object. All English translations of A N Leontyev > make this mistake which has caused no end of confusion among > English-speakers. > > Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," just as > you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." > > Andy > > ------------------------------ ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics. org/ablunden/index.htm > On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > Dear Sasha, all, > > > > > > thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding > response. I think you are right in your assertion that we > are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of > CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. However, one > can see in the lack of response by other members?? that > not everyone has the privilege of the time it requires to > go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing > that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce and I > hope it is/will be appreciated as such. > > > > > > If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I quote > from your response: > > > > > > "If we want to make our choice of the initial category, > without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us > as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will > choose the one of the two categories from which one can > derive the entire diversity of human life, including > another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that > such an initial category can only be object-oriented > activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the > latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from > communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such > spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or > object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" > > > > > > If we stay within the boundaries of the framework > according to which we are looking of the most original > germ cell, the one from which all others can be > developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I > think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree on that. > > > > > > But ??once we are back to the development of a concrete > Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact that, for > any child to participate in human forms of object-oriented > activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented > activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular > organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into those > forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category > devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with > the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you describe, is > this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, or is > it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? > > > > > > As moderator, I should stop there and let others answer > (which I hope some do). > > > > As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: > > > > > > Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in > ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of teaching > deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this > is only possible through *involvement* in collective > activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary > over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is > only possible in and through object-oriented activity). > But then, is not the teaching, the instructional aspect of > the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to > this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this > object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all > those attributes that you just called 'spiritually > uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such > activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get > collective activity without them? On this, and precisely > in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of Man", > Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in that > case that communication is included in activity and is its > essential component: without relation to another > person(s), activity is impossible' (144). Although I not > always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I can't > see how he can be wrong. > > > > > > So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of > reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the > category of object-oriented activity, is most primary. Let > me also note that ?there are other authors who have > developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you > discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on > French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom > affectivity is the concrete 'essence of auto-affection' ( > https://www.amazon.com/ Incarnation-Philosophy- Studies-Phenomenology- Existential/dp/0810131269 > ) > > > > > > As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I wonder > whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity > and communication. Is not the distinction just an artefact > of a partial understanding of what it means activity and > what it means communicating. I still feel that > communication, in the sense of addressivity that Mikhailov > describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for > semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity > precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't > get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps > naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication > that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in > the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I > don't see how any practical activity can have any sense > (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. > Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are > talking about; one machines could perform on their own > without consciousness. ? > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________ __ > > From: Alexander Surmava > > > Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > ; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo > Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole > > Subject: Object oriented activity and communication > > > > Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > > The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, > touching on the most fundamental categories. But before > proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica > aside) :-) > > Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is > conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, > based on the general principles accepted in its framework > and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a > common, unifying conception are usually considered the > theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. > Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions > reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the > interpretation of these concepts. > > For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle > of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible > with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is > possible to consider both objective activity and > communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe > for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to > these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? > > I am convinced that without answering these and similar > fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry > and without answering them in the most general form, we > are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this > leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, > returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical > grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that > instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, > based on which we can practically solve socially > significant problems, let us say, create a consistently > democratic education system, we draw everyone to the > interesting only for us theoretical > verbiage > about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical > problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between > Vygotsky and Leontiev. > > Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too > to reflect on how to help find the path to education and > culture for the children of poor migrants from Central > Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > > > > Agitprop > >? sticks > >? in my teeth too, > > and I?d rather > >? compose > >? romances for you - > > more profit in it > >? and more charm. > > But I > >? subdued > >? myself, > >? setting my heel > > on the throat > >? of my own song. > >? Vladimir Mayakovski > > > > ? ??? > >? ???????? > >? ? ????? ?????, > > ? ??? ?? > >? ???????? > >? ??????? ?? ??? ? > > ???????? ??? > >? ? ??????????. > > ?? ? > >? ???? > >? ??????, > >? ????????? > > ?? ????? > >? ??????????? ?????. > >? ???????? ?????????? > > > > > > Among other things, such an over and over again forced > return to the very foundation makes it difficult to > understand even these very basics, for it forces us to > return to the most abstract level all the time, literally > stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract > to the concrete. > > Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions > about how to understand the principle of interaction as > such and about the relationship of object oriented > activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer > them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed > answers to these questions have been formulated by me in > my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF > LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian > ???????? ?????? ???????????? > ???????????? . > Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the > principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is > available in English. It was even sent in published in > English international journal... but for some strange > reason was not published then or later. > > So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, > especially since I can answer by quoting my old text > https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS. > > But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to > repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction > of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case > be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two > ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach > should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my > opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should > not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious > that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the > type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the > mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object > oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing > with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic > of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? > ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the > terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" > is also an interaction, but that is its highest, > essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism > type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense > that one can not in principle separate out its active and > passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in > the process of positing of an object one side is active, > subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There > are many interesting differences between them, but let us > return to this somehow later. > > In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation > work of 1988: > > ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation > can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two > objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken > abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is > neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It > receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to > spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) > ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? > imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant > leaves (with his telescope). > > That is to say that living, active or predmet relation > as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously > acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital activity. > > Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, > or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not > spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. > Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not > determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with > accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. > Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not > just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be > conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism > itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing > indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into > contact with its living subjectivity. To put it > differently, we can find not the slightest trace of > predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive relation.? > > Now about the object oriented activity and > communication, and it does not matter whether in the > verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's > "addressing" to another person. > > Which of these two categories should be considered > primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to > discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness > (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and > remains the central problem of theoretical psychology > associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and Ilyenkov. > > To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want > to build scientific psychology in accordance with the > famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the > concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers > believed that the method of ascent, the method of > "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to > ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical > discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one > thing - either activity or communication. And at first > glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a > Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course > sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic > coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human > essence is no abstraction inherent in each single > individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the > social relations.. " > > And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's > view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely > scientific psychology consisted only in the need to > reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology > with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then > the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely > difficult situation, because the classics left us with > different meanings on this topic and with which of them it > is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, > and with which in the second, it would still have to be > solved by ourselves. > > So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this > issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A > group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was AN > Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly > belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented > activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second > and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of > Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was inclined to > formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, > "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" > were for communication. > > Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our > reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal > reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our > current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a > direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the > classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something > rather indecent. > > The end of the discussion between supporters of > "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also > characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, > convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing > the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was > dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was > expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of > director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of > Leontief's psychology department was appointed a > well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader > Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in > the ideological department of the Central Committee of > CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific > "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in > Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the > Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters > of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's > short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE > could not reverse the situation too. > > Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to > "communication" and "activity." > > If we want to make our choice of the initial category, > without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us > as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will > choose the one of the two categories from which one can > derive the entire diversity of human life, including > another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that > such an initial category can only be object-oriented > activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the > latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from > communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such > spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or > object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. > > And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact > realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive > Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and > the entire affective sphere associated with it is first > generated by objective activity at the most basic level, > in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic > of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course > of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. > And, finally, it demonstrates how the external > reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, > together and practically producing their own lives, > assumes a specifically human character, being a > reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. > > We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" > communication and the affective side of life are taken not > as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of > which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as > necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s > REFLEXIVE side. > > The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my > diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a > Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the > relation of objective activity and "communication". In the > same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, > the active relation of the subject to the object and to > itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, > indeed, any other, psychology. > > ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????, > ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, > ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, > ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? > https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS > ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. > > The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable > place for introducing such fundamental concepts, > therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the > notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large > English text > https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS > and read it to the end :-). > > ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? > ???????????? > > ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? > ??????????? ???????? > https://www.avramus.com/app/ download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 > . > > Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > > The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, > touching on the most fundamental categories. But before > proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica > aside) :-) > > Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is > conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, > based on the general principles accepted in its framework > and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a > common, unifying conception are usually considered the > theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. > Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions > reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the > interpretation of these concepts. > > For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle > of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible > with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is > possible to consider both objective activity and > communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe > for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to > these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? > > I am convinced that without answering these and similar > fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry > and without answering them in the most general form, we > are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this > leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, > returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical > grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that > instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, > based on which we can practically solve socially > significant problems, let us say, create a consistently > democratic education system, we draw everyone to the > interesting only for us theoretical > verbiage > about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical > problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between > Vygotsky and Leontiev. > > Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too > to reflect on how to help find the path to education and > culture for the children of poor migrants from Central > Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > > > > Agitprop > >? sticks > >? in my teeth too, > > and I?d rather > >? compose > >? romances for you - > > more profit in it > >? and more charm. > > But I > >? subdued > >? myself, > >? setting my heel > > on the throat > >? of my own song. > >? Vladimir Mayakovski > > > > ? ??? > >? ???????? > >? ? ????? ?????, > > ? ??? ?? > >? ???????? > >? ??????? ?? ??? ? > > ???????? ??? > >? ? ??????????. > > ?? ? > >? ???? > >? ??????, > >? ????????? > > ?? ????? > >? ??????????? ?????. > >? ???????? ?????????? > > > > > > Among other things, such an over and over again forced > return to the very foundation makes it difficult to > understand even these very basics, for it forces us to > return to the most abstract level all the time, literally > stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract > to the concrete. > > Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions > about how to understand the principle of interaction as > such and about the relationship of object oriented > activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer > them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed > answers to these questions have been formulated by me in > my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF > LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian > ???????? ?????? ???????????? > ???????????? . > Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the > principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is > available in English. It was even sent in published in > English international journal... but for some strange > reason was not published then or later. > > So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, > especially since I can answer by quoting my old text > https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS. > > But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to > repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction > of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case > be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two > ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach > should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my > opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should > not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious > that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the > type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the > mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object > oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing > with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic > of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? > ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the > terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" > is also an interaction, but that is its highest, > essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism > type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense > that one can not in principle separate out its active and > passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in > the process of positing of an object one side is active, > subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There > are many interesting differences between them, but let us > return to this somehow later. > > In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation > work of 1988: > > ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation > can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two > objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken > abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is > neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It > receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to > spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) > ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? > imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant > leaves (with his telescope). > > That is to say that living, active or predmet relation > as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously > acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital activity. > > Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, > or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not > spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. > Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not > determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with > accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. > Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not > just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be > conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism > itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing > indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into > contact with its living subjectivity. To put it > differently, we can find not the slightest trace of > predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive relation.? > > Now about the object oriented activity and > communication, and it does not matter whether in the > verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's > "addressing" to another person. > > Which of these two categories should be considered > primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to > discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness > (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and > remains the central problem of theoretical psychology > associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and Ilyenkov. > > To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want > to build scientific psychology in accordance with the > famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the > concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers > believed that the method of ascent, the method of > "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to > ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical > discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one > thing - either activity or communication. And at first > glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a > Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course > sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic > coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human > essence is no abstraction inherent in each single > individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the > social relations.. " > > And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's > view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely > scientific psychology consisted only in the need to > reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology > with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then > the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely > difficult situation, because the classics left us with > different meanings on this topic and with which of them it > is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, > and with which in the second, it would still have to be > solved by ourselves. > > > > So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this > issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A > group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was > Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly > belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented > activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second > and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas > a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was > inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other > words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas > "Leningraders" were for "communication". > > Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our > reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a literal > reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our > current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a > direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the > classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something > rather indecent. > > > > The end of the discussion between supporters of > "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also > characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, > convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing > the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was > dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was > expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of > director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of > Leontief's psychology department was appointed a > well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader > Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in > the ideological department of the Central Committee of > CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific > "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in > Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the > Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters > of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's > short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE > could not reverse the situation too. > > > > Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to > "communication" and "activity." > > If we want to make our choice of the initial category, > without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us > as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will > choose the one of the two categories from which one can > derive the entire diversity of human life, including > another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that > such an initial category can only be object-oriented > activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the > object oriented activity, which is an attribute property > of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, > empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we > will never get life or object oriented activity even with > the greatest diligence. > > > > And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact > realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive > Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and > the entire affective sphere associated with it is first > generated by objective activity at the most basic level, > in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic > of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course > of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. > > And, finally, it demonstrates how the external > reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, > together and practically producing their own lives, > assumes a specifically human character, being a > reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. > > > > We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" > communication and the affective side of life are taken not > as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of > which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as > necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s > REFLEXIVE side. > > > > The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my diploma > thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist > theoretical solution to the question of the relation of > objective activity and "communication". In the same time, > reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active > relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is > the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, > any other, psychology. > > The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable > place for introducing such fundamental concepts, > therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the > notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large > English text > https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS > and read it to the end :-). > > > > The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? > ???????????? > > > > Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short > English one > https://www.avramus.com/app/ download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. > > > > Sasha > > > > > > > > From ablunden@mira.net Sat Oct 14 19:03:16 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 13:03:16 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> Haydi, partly the problem with ANL's philosophy-as-we-know-it is simply a product of its translation into English. But partly it is also in his philosophy. As Victor Kaptelinin first pointed out (so far as I know), ANL knows the universal and the particular but he does not know the individual. And his son's comment that ANL did not conceive of Activity as being discrete proves this to be the case. Thus his concept of Activity is not a fully concrete concept. And this is not a product of translation. As David Kellogg has kindly pointed out to me, it was Hegel who actually first introduced this metaphor of people "walking (or standing) on their heads." Personally, I don't think it has ever helped anyone understand the defect of Hegel's philosophy to throw this metaphor back at him. As demonstrated in this issue (the concept of activity) it was Hegel who understood that a concept must have all three moments - universal, particular and individual. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 15/10/2017 9:24 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > Dear Mike, > Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an activist for his concreteness and clarifications is crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes , Parts , and Moments. He personally provided us with examples from Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they convert Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced with the same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most valuable contribution) does not begin with the individual case in isolation which phenomenologically speaking (in contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not obtained because one instance is considered detached from all relations and its subservience to the service of the Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is particular in some feature/s. And these particulars are essential. With other particulars in other individuals they are related actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense , this whole could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life itself. Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is , with category and concept only therefore , following Marx and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again on his feet (not that the firmament to that time did put "idea" on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on their heads but to put them again headstand thinking and acting with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just with their brains. Then taking all options in translation even that of a Machine into consideration it does not seem to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of activities thereafter. These activities are those arising from the properties of versatile objects in turn arising from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual activities as moments with the broadest idea of the Monistic Substantial Modes or States in Philosophical terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn integrate and are dissolved into Monism of Substance. > > Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one Substance) is already there with the organism actively and spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own , positioning its due object and moving along its contours and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to itself , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with a huge gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of consciousness , now apparently ascending to "wording" and "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration) further "communication" as something indispensable and necessary and inevitable to the realization of life affairs. > Best > Haydi > > > From: mike cole > To: Andy Blunden ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc: Alexander Surmava ; ivan-dgf ; Ivan Uemlianin ; Haydi Zulfei > Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50 > Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication > > Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.Could someone post the Russian text next to the English so that it is possible to compare it with the translation? I spent several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally defeated me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra rubles in my pocket. > Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us a "true" translation. > mike > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > The Progress Publishers English translation of "Activity and > Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of > Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: > > Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, > material life of the material subject. In the narrower > sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a unit of > life, mediated by mental reflection, by > an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the > subject in the objective world. > > In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The > Development of Mind" we have: > > Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an > organism?s activity; the different activities that realise > its diverse vital relations with the surrounding reality are > essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore > differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively > different] types of activity according to the difference in > their objects. > > By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses > "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has > been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for > English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean simply > "category." The second does the same, but in addition makes > it evident that the plural does not refer to different > activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the > possibility of forming a true concept of activity altogether. > > With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is > simply that "such an initial *category* can only be > object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing > that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, > even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. > > Andy > ------------------------------ ------------------------------ > > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics. org/ablunden/index.htm > On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: >> Dear Andy! >> I am glad that our communication was resumed after many >> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and files >> and found that the problem of "object oriented activity OR >> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before >> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is serious and >> it deserves to return to it today. >> Last year I was close to being silent forever. >> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed >> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the >> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my >> theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my >> descendants :-). >> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not >> understand your question. What means the distinction >> between singular and plural number in your remark? Could >> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the >> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my >> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, >> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of >> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my dissertation >> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's "Theory of >> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, >> having understood the theoretic meaning of your claims to >> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily >> understand the essence of your objections to me. >> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I >> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a >> particular empirical case of its manifestation. Therefore, >> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just like >> Matter, Nature, or Substance. >> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come across >> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its >> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the >> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old >> philosophers and that only the numerous individual "atomic >> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really >> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar >> positivism and empiricism. >> However, all of this may not apply to your position ... >> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. >> Best wishes >> Sasha >> >> >> >> ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden >> ?????(?): >> >> >> I'll ask Sasha a question. >> >> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial >> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it stands, >> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be that you >> are translating it from a Russian statement that is correct. >> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in when I >> say "every activity has an object." But in your expression >> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and unless >> you are a religious person is not something which can have a >> specific object. All English translations of A N Leontyev >> make this mistake which has caused no end of confusion among >> English-speakers. >> >> Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," just as >> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------ ------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics. org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>> Dear Sasha, all, >>> >>> >>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding >> response. I think you are right in your assertion that we >> are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of >> CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. However, one >> can see in the lack of response by other members?? that >> not everyone has the privilege of the time it requires to >> go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing >> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce and I >> hope it is/will be appreciated as such. >>> >>> If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I quote >> from your response: >>> >>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" >>> >>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework >> according to which we are looking of the most original >> germ cell, the one from which all others can be >> developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I >> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree on that. >>> >>> But ??once we are back to the development of a concrete >> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact that, for >> any child to participate in human forms of object-oriented >> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented >> activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular >> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into those >> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category >> devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with >> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you describe, is >> this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, or is >> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? >>> >>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others answer >> (which I hope some do). >>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: >>> >>> >>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in >> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of teaching >> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this >> is only possible through *involvement* in collective >> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary >> over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is >> only possible in and through object-oriented activity). >> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional aspect of >> the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to >> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this >> object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all >> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually >> uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such >> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get >> collective activity without them? On this, and precisely >> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of Man", >> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in that >> case that communication is included in activity and is its >> essential component: without relation to another >> person(s), activity is impossible' (144). Although I not >> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I can't >> see how he can be wrong. >>> >>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of >> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the >> category of object-oriented activity, is most primary. Let >> me also note that ?there are other authors who have >> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you >> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on >> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom >> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of auto-affection' ( >> https://www.amazon.com/ Incarnation-Philosophy- Studies-Phenomenology- Existential/dp/0810131269 >> ) >>> >>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I wonder >> whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity >> and communication. Is not the distinction just an artefact >> of a partial understanding of what it means activity and >> what it means communicating. I still feel that >> communication, in the sense of addressivity that Mikhailov >> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for >> semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity >> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't >> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps >> naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication >> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in >> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I >> don't see how any practical activity can have any sense >> (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. >> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are >> talking about; one machines could perform on their own >> without consciousness. ? >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Alfredo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ______________________________ __ >>> From: Alexander Surmava > > >>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >> ; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo >> Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole >>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication >>> >>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >> aside) :-) >>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >> interpretation of these concepts. >>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >> possible to consider both objective activity and >> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >> and without answering them in the most general form, we >> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >> based on which we can practically solve socially >> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >> interesting only for us theoretical >> verbiage >> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>> Agitprop >>> sticks >>> in my teeth too, >>> and I?d rather >>> compose >>> romances for you - >>> more profit in it >>> and more charm. >>> But I >>> subdued >>> myself, >>> setting my heel >>> on the throat >>> of my own song. >>> Vladimir Mayakovski >>> >>> ? ??? >>> ???????? >>> ? ????? ?????, >>> ? ??? ?? >>> ???????? >>> ??????? ?? ??? ? >>> ???????? ??? >>> ? ??????????. >>> ?? ? >>> ???? >>> ??????, >>> ????????? >>> ?? ????? >>> ??????????? ?????. >>> ???????? ?????????? >>> >>> >>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >> to the concrete. >>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >> such and about the relationship of object oriented >> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >> ???????????? . >> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >> available in English. It was even sent in published in >> English international journal... but for some strange >> reason was not published then or later. >>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS. >>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >> return to this somehow later. >>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >> work of 1988: >>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >> leaves (with his telescope). >>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital activity. >>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive relation.? >>> Now about the object oriented activity and >> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >> "addressing" to another person. >>> Which of these two categories should be considered >> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and Ilyenkov. >>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >> social relations.. " >>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >> solved by ourselves. >>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was AN >> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of >> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was inclined to >> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, >> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" >> were for communication. >>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal >> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >> rather indecent. >>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters >> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >> could not reverse the situation too. >>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >> "communication" and "activity." >>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. >>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >> together and practically producing their own lives, >> assumes a specifically human character, being a >> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >> REFLEXIVE side. >>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my >> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a >> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the >> relation of objective activity and "communication". In the >> same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, >> the active relation of the subject to the object and to >> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, >> indeed, any other, psychology. >>> ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????, >> ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, >> ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, >> ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS >> ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. >>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >> English text >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS >> and read it to the end :-). >>> ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >> ???????????? >>> ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? >> ??????????? ???????? >> https://www.avramus.com/app/ download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 >> . >>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >> aside) :-) >>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >> interpretation of these concepts. >>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >> possible to consider both objective activity and >> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >> and without answering them in the most general form, we >> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >> based on which we can practically solve socially >> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >> interesting only for us theoretical >> verbiage >> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>> Agitprop >>> sticks >>> in my teeth too, >>> and I?d rather >>> compose >>> romances for you - >>> more profit in it >>> and more charm. >>> But I >>> subdued >>> myself, >>> setting my heel >>> on the throat >>> of my own song. >>> Vladimir Mayakovski >>> >>> ? ??? >>> ???????? >>> ? ????? ?????, >>> ? ??? ?? >>> ???????? >>> ??????? ?? ??? ? >>> ???????? ??? >>> ? ??????????. >>> ?? ? >>> ???? >>> ??????, >>> ????????? >>> ?? ????? >>> ??????????? ?????. >>> ???????? ?????????? >>> >>> >>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >> to the concrete. >>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >> such and about the relationship of object oriented >> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >> ???????????? . >> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >> available in English. It was even sent in published in >> English international journal... but for some strange >> reason was not published then or later. >>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS. >>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >> return to this somehow later. >>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >> work of 1988: >>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >> leaves (with his telescope). >>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital activity. >>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive relation.? >>> Now about the object oriented activity and >> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >> "addressing" to another person. >>> Which of these two categories should be considered >> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and Ilyenkov. >>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >> social relations.. " >>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >> solved by ourselves. >>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was >> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas >> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was >> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other >> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas >> "Leningraders" were for "communication". >>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a literal >> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >> rather indecent. >>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters >> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >> could not reverse the situation too. >>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >> "communication" and "activity." >>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >> object oriented activity, which is an attribute property >> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, >> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we >> will never get life or object oriented activity even with >> the greatest diligence. >>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >> together and practically producing their own lives, >> assumes a specifically human character, being a >> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >> REFLEXIVE side. >>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my diploma >> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist >> theoretical solution to the question of the relation of >> objective activity and "communication". In the same time, >> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active >> relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is >> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, >> any other, psychology. >>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >> English text >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS >> and read it to the end :-). >>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >> ???????????? >>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short >> English one >> https://www.avramus.com/app/ download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. >>> Sasha >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > > > > From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Sun Oct 15 00:51:25 2017 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 07:51:25 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> Message-ID: <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> Andy, Let me first apologize to David Kellog because in others' wandering and perplexity it was he who in his reading of Gramsci's prison letters came across this point and made you not only accept the inappropriateness of Hegel's headstand as Crowning every worldly affair deriving from the People's Heads "Idea" , "Absolute" but also intensifying this point with more examples and references from Engels' "utopian versus genuine socialism" on your part. Of course you've been helping us on many occasions and? you're very welcome for this nothing to be denied. At this point we have no problem with translation. Leontiev meant it. Suppose that ANL does not know "individual" which is very ambiguous because in what then one should seek the embodiment of the "particular" and if one takes the very particular as individual , then everything gets mixed up . Then what about you who stick firmly on individual discrete detached activities as an objection to Sasha's sole ACTIVITY as theoretical understanding. As you well know even AN activity is not a thing ; it's a process. And you once distinguished between GENERAL WORK ACTIVITY and LABOUR ACTIVITY or VALORIZATION ACTIVITY which was quite right and timely though you recently gave differing definitions in no way harmonious to your previous definitions. But the main problem is blending clarity in expression with concrete in theory. No doubt you're a Fan of Hegel. I should repeat myself : Hegel is a hero of theoretical concepts. In theorizing , and for him to explicate the Essence of Phenomena , he begins with apparently concrete things as ABSTRACTS finally reaches CONCRETE UNIVERSALS as concepts. And here we again very surprisingly see you put your finger upon what you should have known in person is contrary to your own erudition. Turning Hegel down as believing in discrete abstracts. And now to his son's comment : What individual are you pursuing? Your Hegel sees phenomena in their relations. According to him and also according to ANL ACTIVITY as a unit of Life is Molar non-additive. He even does not see operations as single acts. It's a matter of the angle of vision not detachment and concreteness. If his son had talked of concreteness in moments of activity , then you were right in your objections and oppositions. You please give us your last definition of activity here (not in lengthy references) so that we can have a discerning option. ? ? ? So far to remove the problem we should accept operations are separately and independently carried out ; actions in their own are carried out ; activities are carried out arbitrarily. And these are done to the realization of man as the ensemble of social relations based on some infrastructure. Hegel's metaphor has been thrown back at him by Marx , Engels , Lenin , Vygotsky , Ilyenko , and many others. If you like to stand above all Giants of Marxism , it's something perfectly and absolutely Personal as you're speaking out loud! Then why give us so many references.? Best Haydi P.S. Alfredo! Though you have my previous private response concerning the matters you pose I see myself accountable to rewrite them to the Public. Thanks! From: Andy Blunden To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Sent: Sunday, 15 October 2017, 5:35:40 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Haydi, partly the problem with ANL's philosophy-as-we-know-it is simply a product of its translation into English. But partly it is also in his philosophy. As Victor Kaptelinin first pointed out (so far as I know), ANL knows the universal and the particular but he does not know the individual. And his son's comment that ANL did not conceive of Activity as being discrete proves this to be the case. Thus his concept of Activity is not a fully concrete concept. And this is not a product of translation. As David Kellogg has kindly pointed out to me, it was Hegel who actually first introduced this metaphor of people "walking (or standing) on their heads." Personally, I don't think it has ever helped anyone understand the defect of Hegel's philosophy to throw this metaphor back at him. As demonstrated in this issue (the concept of activity) it was Hegel who understood that a concept must have all three moments - universal, particular and individual. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 15/10/2017 9:24 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > Dear Mike, > Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an activist for his concreteness and clarifications is crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes , Parts , and Moments. He personally provided us with examples from Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they convert Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced with the same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most valuable contribution) does not begin with the individual case in isolation which phenomenologically? speaking (in contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not obtained because one instance is considered detached from all relations and its subservience to the service of the Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is particular in some feature/s. And these particulars are essential. With other particulars in other individuals they are related actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense , this whole could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life itself. Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is , with category and concept only therefore , following Marx and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again on his feet (not that the firmament to that time did put "idea" on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on their heads but to put them again headstand thinking and acting with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just with their brains. Then taking all options in translation even that of a Machine into consideration it does not seem to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of activities thereafter. These activities are those arising from the properties of versatile objects in turn arising from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual activities as moments with the broadest idea of the Monistic Substantial Modes or States in Philosophical terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn integrate and are dissolved into Monism of Substance. > > Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one Substance) is already there with the organism actively and spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own , positioning its due object and moving along its contours and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to itself , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with a huge gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of consciousness , now apparently ascending to "wording" and "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration) further "communication" as something indispensable and necessary and inevitable to the realization of life affairs. > Best > Haydi? ? ? > > >? ? ? From: mike cole >? To: Andy Blunden ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc: Alexander Surmava ; ivan-dgf ; Ivan Uemlianin ; Haydi Zulfei >? Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50 >? Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >? ? > Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.Could someone post the Russian text next to the English so that it is possible to compare it with the translation? I spent several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally defeated me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra rubles in my pocket. > Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us a "true" translation. > mike > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > The Progress Publishers English translation of "Activity and > Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of > Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: > >? ? Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, >? ? material life of the material subject. In the narrower >? ? sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a unit of >? ? life, mediated by mental reflection, by >? ? an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the >? ? subject in the objective world. > > In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The > Development of Mind" we have: > > Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an > organism?s activity; the different activities that realise > its diverse vital relations with the surrounding reality are > essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore > differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively > different] types of activity according to the difference in > their objects. > > By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses > "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has > been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for > English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean simply > "category." The second does the same, but in addition makes > it evident that the plural does not refer to different > activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the > possibility of forming a true concept of activity altogether. > > With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is > simply that "such an initial *category* can only be > object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing > that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, > even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. > > Andy > ------------------------------ ------------------------------ > > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics. org/ablunden/index.htm > On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: >> Dear Andy! >> I am glad that our communication was resumed after many >> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and files >> and found that the problem of "object oriented activity OR >> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before >> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is serious and >> it deserves to return to it today. >> Last year I was close to being silent forever. >> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed >> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the >> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my >> theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my >> descendants :-). >> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not >> understand your question. What means the distinction >> between singular and plural number in your remark? Could >> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the >> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my >> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, >> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of >> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my dissertation >> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's "Theory of >> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, >> having understood the theoretic meaning of your claims to >> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily >> understand the essence of your objections to me. >> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I >> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a >> particular empirical case of its manifestation. Therefore, >> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just like >> Matter, Nature, or Substance. >> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come across >> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its >> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the >> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old >> philosophers and that only the numerous individual "atomic >> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really >> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar >> positivism and empiricism. >> However, all of this may not apply to your position ... >> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. >> Best wishes >> Sasha >> >> >> >> ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden >> ?????(?): >> >> >> I'll ask Sasha a question. >> >> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial >> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it stands, >> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be that you >> are translating it from a Russian statement that is correct. >> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in when I >> say "every activity has an object."? But in your expression >> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and unless >> you are a religious person is not something which can have a >> specific object. All English translations of A N Leontyev >> make this mistake which has caused no end of confusion among >> English-speakers. >> >> Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," just as >> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------ ------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics. org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>> Dear Sasha, all, >>> >>> >>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding >> response. I think you are right in your assertion that we >> are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of >> CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. However, one >> can see in the lack of response by other members?? that >> not everyone has the privilege of the time it requires to >> go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing >> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce and I >> hope it is/will be appreciated as such. >>> >>> If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I quote >> from your response: >>> >>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" >>> >>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework >> according to which we are looking of the most original >> germ cell, the one from which all others can be >> developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I >> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree on that. >>> >>> But ??once we are back to the development of a concrete >> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact that, for >> any child to participate in human forms of object-oriented >> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented >> activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular >> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into those >> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category >> devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with >> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you describe, is >> this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, or is >> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? >>> >>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others answer >> (which I hope some do). >>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: >>> >>> >>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in >> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of teaching >> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this >> is only possible through *involvement* in collective >> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary >> over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is >> only possible in and through object-oriented activity). >> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional aspect of >> the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to >> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this >> object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all >> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually >> uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such >> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get >> collective activity without them? On this, and precisely >> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of Man", >> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in that >> case that communication is included in activity and is its >> essential component: without relation to another >> person(s), activity is impossible'? (144). Although I not >> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I can't >> see how he can be wrong. >>> >>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of >> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the >> category of object-oriented activity, is most primary. Let >> me also note that ?there are other authors who have >> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you >> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on >> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom >> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of auto-affection' ( >> https://www.amazon.com/ Incarnation-Philosophy- Studies-Phenomenology- Existential/dp/0810131269 >> ) >>> >>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I wonder >> whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity >> and communication. Is not the distinction just an artefact >> of a partial understanding of what it means activity and >> what it means communicating. I still feel that >> communication, in the sense of addressivity that Mikhailov >> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for >> semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity >> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't >> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps >> naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication >> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in >> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I >> don't see how any practical activity can have any sense >> (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. >> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are >> talking about; one machines could perform on their own >> without consciousness. ? >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Alfredo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ______________________________ __ >>> From: Alexander Surmava > > >>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >> ; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo >> Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole >>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication >>> >>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >> aside) :-) >>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >> interpretation of these concepts. >>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >> possible to consider both objective activity and >> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >> and without answering them in the most general form, we >> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >> based on which we can practically solve socially >> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >> interesting only for us theoretical >> verbiage >> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>> Agitprop >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? sticks >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? in my teeth too, >>> and I?d rather >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? compose >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? romances for you - >>> more profit in it >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? and more charm. >>> But I >>>? ? ? ? subdued >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? myself, >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? setting my heel >>> on the throat >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of my own song. >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Vladimir Mayakovski >>> >>> ? ??? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????? ?????, >>> ? ??? ?? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????? ?? ??? ? >>> ???????? ??? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????. >>> ?? ? >>>? ? ? ? ???? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????, >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????????? >>> ?? ????? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????? ?????. >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? ?????????? >>> >>> >>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >> to the concrete. >>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >> such and about the relationship of object oriented >> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >> ???????????? . >> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >> available in English. It was even sent in published in >> English international journal... but for some strange >> reason was not published then or later. >>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS. >>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >> return to this somehow later. >>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >> work of 1988: >>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >> leaves (with his telescope). >>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital activity. >>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive relation.? >>> Now about the object oriented activity and >> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >> "addressing" to another person. >>> Which of these two categories should be considered >> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and Ilyenkov. >>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >> social relations.. " >>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >> solved by ourselves. >>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was AN >> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of >> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was inclined to >> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, >> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" >> were for communication. >>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal >> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >> rather indecent. >>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed? supporters >> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >> could not reverse the situation too. >>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >> "communication" and "activity." >>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. >>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >> together and practically producing their own lives, >> assumes a specifically human character, being a >> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >> REFLEXIVE side. >>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my >> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a >> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the >> relation of objective activity and "communication". In the >> same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, >> the active relation of the subject to the object and to >> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, >> indeed, any other, psychology. >>> ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????, >> ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, >> ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, >> ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS >> ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. >>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >> English text >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS >> and read it to the end :-). >>> ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >> ???????????? >>> ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? >> ??????????? ???????? >> https://www.avramus.com/app/ download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 >> . >>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >> aside) :-) >>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >> interpretation of these concepts. >>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >> possible to consider both objective activity and >> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >> and without answering them in the most general form, we >> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >> based on which we can practically solve socially >> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >> interesting only for us theoretical >> verbiage >> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>> Agitprop >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? sticks >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? in my teeth too, >>> and I?d rather >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? compose >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? romances for you - >>> more profit in it >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? and more charm. >>> But I >>>? ? ? ? subdued >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? myself, >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? setting my heel >>> on the throat >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of my own song. >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Vladimir Mayakovski >>> >>> ? ??? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????? ?????, >>> ? ??? ?? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????? ?? ??? ? >>> ???????? ??? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????. >>> ?? ? >>>? ? ? ? ???? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????, >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????????? >>> ?? ????? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????? ?????. >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? ?????????? >>> >>> >>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >> to the concrete. >>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >> such and about the relationship of object oriented >> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >> ???????????? . >> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >> available in English. It was even sent in published in >> English international journal... but for some strange >> reason was not published then or later. >>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS. >>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >> return to this somehow later. >>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >> work of 1988: >>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >> leaves (with his telescope). >>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital activity. >>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive relation.? >>> Now about the object oriented activity and >> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >> "addressing" to another person. >>> Which of these two categories should be considered >> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and Ilyenkov. >>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >> social relations.. " >>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >> solved by ourselves. >>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was >> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas >> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was >> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other >> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas >> "Leningraders" were for "communication". >>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a literal >> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >> rather indecent. >>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed? supporters >> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >> could not reverse the situation too. >>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >> "communication" and "activity." >>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >> object oriented activity, which is an attribute property >> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, >> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we >> will never get life or object oriented activity even with >> the greatest diligence. >>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >> together and practically producing their own lives, >> assumes a specifically human character, being a >> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >> REFLEXIVE side. >>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my diploma >> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist >> theoretical solution to the question of the relation of >> objective activity and "communication". In the same time, >> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active >> relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is >> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, >> any other, psychology. >>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >> English text >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS >> and read it to the end :-). >>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >> ???????????? >>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short >> English one >> https://www.avramus.com/app/ download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. >>> Sasha >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > >? ? > > From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Sun Oct 15 00:51:25 2017 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 07:51:25 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> Message-ID: <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> Andy, Let me first apologize to David Kellog because in others' wandering and perplexity it was he who in his reading of Gramsci's prison letters came across this point and made you not only accept the inappropriateness of Hegel's headstand as Crowning every worldly affair deriving from the People's Heads "Idea" , "Absolute" but also intensifying this point with more examples and references from Engels' "utopian versus genuine socialism" on your part. Of course you've been helping us on many occasions and? you're very welcome for this nothing to be denied. At this point we have no problem with translation. Leontiev meant it. Suppose that ANL does not know "individual" which is very ambiguous because in what then one should seek the embodiment of the "particular" and if one takes the very particular as individual , then everything gets mixed up . Then what about you who stick firmly on individual discrete detached activities as an objection to Sasha's sole ACTIVITY as theoretical understanding. As you well know even AN activity is not a thing ; it's a process. And you once distinguished between GENERAL WORK ACTIVITY and LABOUR ACTIVITY or VALORIZATION ACTIVITY which was quite right and timely though you recently gave differing definitions in no way harmonious to your previous definitions. But the main problem is blending clarity in expression with concrete in theory. No doubt you're a Fan of Hegel. I should repeat myself : Hegel is a hero of theoretical concepts. In theorizing , and for him to explicate the Essence of Phenomena , he begins with apparently concrete things as ABSTRACTS finally reaches CONCRETE UNIVERSALS as concepts. And here we again very surprisingly see you put your finger upon what you should have known in person is contrary to your own erudition. Turning Hegel down as believing in discrete abstracts. And now to his son's comment : What individual are you pursuing? Your Hegel sees phenomena in their relations. According to him and also according to ANL ACTIVITY as a unit of Life is Molar non-additive. He even does not see operations as single acts. It's a matter of the angle of vision not detachment and concreteness. If his son had talked of concreteness in moments of activity , then you were right in your objections and oppositions. You please give us your last definition of activity here (not in lengthy references) so that we can have a discerning option. ? ? ? So far to remove the problem we should accept operations are separately and independently carried out ; actions in their own are carried out ; activities are carried out arbitrarily. And these are done to the realization of man as the ensemble of social relations based on some infrastructure. Hegel's metaphor has been thrown back at him by Marx , Engels , Lenin , Vygotsky , Ilyenko , and many others. If you like to stand above all Giants of Marxism , it's something perfectly and absolutely Personal as you're speaking out loud! Then why give us so many references.? Best Haydi P.S. Alfredo! Though you have my previous private response concerning the matters you pose I see myself accountable to rewrite them to the Public. Thanks! From: Andy Blunden To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Sent: Sunday, 15 October 2017, 5:35:40 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Haydi, partly the problem with ANL's philosophy-as-we-know-it is simply a product of its translation into English. But partly it is also in his philosophy. As Victor Kaptelinin first pointed out (so far as I know), ANL knows the universal and the particular but he does not know the individual. And his son's comment that ANL did not conceive of Activity as being discrete proves this to be the case. Thus his concept of Activity is not a fully concrete concept. And this is not a product of translation. As David Kellogg has kindly pointed out to me, it was Hegel who actually first introduced this metaphor of people "walking (or standing) on their heads." Personally, I don't think it has ever helped anyone understand the defect of Hegel's philosophy to throw this metaphor back at him. As demonstrated in this issue (the concept of activity) it was Hegel who understood that a concept must have all three moments - universal, particular and individual. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 15/10/2017 9:24 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > Dear Mike, > Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an activist for his concreteness and clarifications is crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes , Parts , and Moments. He personally provided us with examples from Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they convert Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced with the same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most valuable contribution) does not begin with the individual case in isolation which phenomenologically? speaking (in contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not obtained because one instance is considered detached from all relations and its subservience to the service of the Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is particular in some feature/s. And these particulars are essential. With other particulars in other individuals they are related actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense , this whole could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life itself. Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is , with category and concept only therefore , following Marx and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again on his feet (not that the firmament to that time did put "idea" on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on their heads but to put them again headstand thinking and acting with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just with their brains. Then taking all options in translation even that of a Machine into consideration it does not seem to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of activities thereafter. These activities are those arising from the properties of versatile objects in turn arising from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual activities as moments with the broadest idea of the Monistic Substantial Modes or States in Philosophical terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn integrate and are dissolved into Monism of Substance. > > Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one Substance) is already there with the organism actively and spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own , positioning its due object and moving along its contours and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to itself , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with a huge gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of consciousness , now apparently ascending to "wording" and "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration) further "communication" as something indispensable and necessary and inevitable to the realization of life affairs. > Best > Haydi? ? ? > > >? ? ? From: mike cole >? To: Andy Blunden ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc: Alexander Surmava ; ivan-dgf ; Ivan Uemlianin ; Haydi Zulfei >? Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50 >? Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >? ? > Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.Could someone post the Russian text next to the English so that it is possible to compare it with the translation? I spent several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally defeated me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra rubles in my pocket. > Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us a "true" translation. > mike > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > The Progress Publishers English translation of "Activity and > Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of > Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: > >? ? Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, >? ? material life of the material subject. In the narrower >? ? sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a unit of >? ? life, mediated by mental reflection, by >? ? an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the >? ? subject in the objective world. > > In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The > Development of Mind" we have: > > Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an > organism?s activity; the different activities that realise > its diverse vital relations with the surrounding reality are > essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore > differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively > different] types of activity according to the difference in > their objects. > > By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses > "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has > been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for > English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean simply > "category." The second does the same, but in addition makes > it evident that the plural does not refer to different > activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the > possibility of forming a true concept of activity altogether. > > With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is > simply that "such an initial *category* can only be > object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing > that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, > even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. > > Andy > ------------------------------ ------------------------------ > > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics. org/ablunden/index.htm > On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: >> Dear Andy! >> I am glad that our communication was resumed after many >> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and files >> and found that the problem of "object oriented activity OR >> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before >> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is serious and >> it deserves to return to it today. >> Last year I was close to being silent forever. >> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed >> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the >> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my >> theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my >> descendants :-). >> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not >> understand your question. What means the distinction >> between singular and plural number in your remark? Could >> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the >> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my >> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, >> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of >> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my dissertation >> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's "Theory of >> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, >> having understood the theoretic meaning of your claims to >> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily >> understand the essence of your objections to me. >> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I >> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a >> particular empirical case of its manifestation. Therefore, >> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just like >> Matter, Nature, or Substance. >> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come across >> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its >> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the >> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old >> philosophers and that only the numerous individual "atomic >> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really >> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar >> positivism and empiricism. >> However, all of this may not apply to your position ... >> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. >> Best wishes >> Sasha >> >> >> >> ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden >> ?????(?): >> >> >> I'll ask Sasha a question. >> >> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial >> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it stands, >> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be that you >> are translating it from a Russian statement that is correct. >> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in when I >> say "every activity has an object."? But in your expression >> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and unless >> you are a religious person is not something which can have a >> specific object. All English translations of A N Leontyev >> make this mistake which has caused no end of confusion among >> English-speakers. >> >> Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," just as >> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------ ------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics. org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>> Dear Sasha, all, >>> >>> >>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding >> response. I think you are right in your assertion that we >> are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of >> CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. However, one >> can see in the lack of response by other members?? that >> not everyone has the privilege of the time it requires to >> go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing >> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce and I >> hope it is/will be appreciated as such. >>> >>> If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I quote >> from your response: >>> >>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" >>> >>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework >> according to which we are looking of the most original >> germ cell, the one from which all others can be >> developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I >> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree on that. >>> >>> But ??once we are back to the development of a concrete >> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact that, for >> any child to participate in human forms of object-oriented >> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented >> activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular >> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into those >> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category >> devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with >> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you describe, is >> this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, or is >> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? >>> >>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others answer >> (which I hope some do). >>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: >>> >>> >>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in >> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of teaching >> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this >> is only possible through *involvement* in collective >> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary >> over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is >> only possible in and through object-oriented activity). >> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional aspect of >> the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to >> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this >> object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all >> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually >> uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such >> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get >> collective activity without them? On this, and precisely >> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of Man", >> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in that >> case that communication is included in activity and is its >> essential component: without relation to another >> person(s), activity is impossible'? (144). Although I not >> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I can't >> see how he can be wrong. >>> >>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of >> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the >> category of object-oriented activity, is most primary. Let >> me also note that ?there are other authors who have >> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you >> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on >> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom >> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of auto-affection' ( >> https://www.amazon.com/ Incarnation-Philosophy- Studies-Phenomenology- Existential/dp/0810131269 >> ) >>> >>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I wonder >> whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity >> and communication. Is not the distinction just an artefact >> of a partial understanding of what it means activity and >> what it means communicating. I still feel that >> communication, in the sense of addressivity that Mikhailov >> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for >> semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity >> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't >> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps >> naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication >> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in >> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I >> don't see how any practical activity can have any sense >> (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. >> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are >> talking about; one machines could perform on their own >> without consciousness. ? >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Alfredo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ______________________________ __ >>> From: Alexander Surmava > > >>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >> ; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo >> Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole >>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication >>> >>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >> aside) :-) >>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >> interpretation of these concepts. >>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >> possible to consider both objective activity and >> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >> and without answering them in the most general form, we >> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >> based on which we can practically solve socially >> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >> interesting only for us theoretical >> verbiage >> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>> Agitprop >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? sticks >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? in my teeth too, >>> and I?d rather >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? compose >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? romances for you - >>> more profit in it >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? and more charm. >>> But I >>>? ? ? ? subdued >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? myself, >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? setting my heel >>> on the throat >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of my own song. >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Vladimir Mayakovski >>> >>> ? ??? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????? ?????, >>> ? ??? ?? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????? ?? ??? ? >>> ???????? ??? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????. >>> ?? ? >>>? ? ? ? ???? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????, >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????????? >>> ?? ????? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????? ?????. >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? ?????????? >>> >>> >>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >> to the concrete. >>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >> such and about the relationship of object oriented >> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >> ???????????? . >> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >> available in English. It was even sent in published in >> English international journal... but for some strange >> reason was not published then or later. >>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS. >>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >> return to this somehow later. >>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >> work of 1988: >>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >> leaves (with his telescope). >>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital activity. >>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive relation.? >>> Now about the object oriented activity and >> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >> "addressing" to another person. >>> Which of these two categories should be considered >> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and Ilyenkov. >>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >> social relations.. " >>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >> solved by ourselves. >>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was AN >> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of >> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was inclined to >> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, >> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" >> were for communication. >>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal >> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >> rather indecent. >>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed? supporters >> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >> could not reverse the situation too. >>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >> "communication" and "activity." >>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. >>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >> together and practically producing their own lives, >> assumes a specifically human character, being a >> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >> REFLEXIVE side. >>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my >> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a >> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the >> relation of objective activity and "communication". In the >> same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, >> the active relation of the subject to the object and to >> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, >> indeed, any other, psychology. >>> ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????, >> ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, >> ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, >> ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS >> ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. >>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >> English text >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS >> and read it to the end :-). >>> ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >> ???????????? >>> ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? >> ??????????? ???????? >> https://www.avramus.com/app/ download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 >> . >>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >> aside) :-) >>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >> interpretation of these concepts. >>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >> possible to consider both objective activity and >> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >> and without answering them in the most general form, we >> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >> based on which we can practically solve socially >> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >> interesting only for us theoretical >> verbiage >> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>> Agitprop >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? sticks >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? in my teeth too, >>> and I?d rather >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? compose >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? romances for you - >>> more profit in it >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? and more charm. >>> But I >>>? ? ? ? subdued >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? myself, >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? setting my heel >>> on the throat >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of my own song. >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Vladimir Mayakovski >>> >>> ? ??? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????? ?????, >>> ? ??? ?? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????? ?? ??? ? >>> ???????? ??? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????. >>> ?? ? >>>? ? ? ? ???? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????, >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????????? >>> ?? ????? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????? ?????. >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? ?????????? >>> >>> >>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >> to the concrete. >>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >> such and about the relationship of object oriented >> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >> ???????????? . >> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >> available in English. It was even sent in published in >> English international journal... but for some strange >> reason was not published then or later. >>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS. >>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >> return to this somehow later. >>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >> work of 1988: >>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >> leaves (with his telescope). >>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital activity. >>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive relation.? >>> Now about the object oriented activity and >> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >> "addressing" to another person. >>> Which of these two categories should be considered >> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and Ilyenkov. >>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >> social relations.. " >>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >> solved by ourselves. >>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was >> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas >> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was >> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other >> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas >> "Leningraders" were for "communication". >>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a literal >> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >> rather indecent. >>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed? supporters >> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >> could not reverse the situation too. >>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >> "communication" and "activity." >>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >> object oriented activity, which is an attribute property >> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, >> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we >> will never get life or object oriented activity even with >> the greatest diligence. >>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >> together and practically producing their own lives, >> assumes a specifically human character, being a >> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >> REFLEXIVE side. >>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my diploma >> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist >> theoretical solution to the question of the relation of >> objective activity and "communication". In the same time, >> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active >> relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is >> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, >> any other, psychology. >>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >> English text >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS >> and read it to the end :-). >>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >> ???????????? >>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short >> English one >> https://www.avramus.com/app/ download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. >>> Sasha >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > >? ? > > From ablunden@mira.net Sun Oct 15 01:13:11 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 19:13:11 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> Haydi, you say "AN activity is not a thing ; it's a process." I wonder then what is a thing which is not also a process? (I interpret "thing" as meaning "something discrete," otherwise your objection makes no sense.) The point is that Hegel does not make this dichotomy - every thing is also a process and vice versa. That a process is also discreet is important because it is only thanks to its discreteness that we can cognise the process and in fact only thanks to its discreteness that a process can affect anything else. To speak of processes which are not also discrete is to speak in abstractions. On this point, when Hegel puts ideas above matter, it has to be realised that for Hegel "ideas" are social practices - he is simply place human practice at the centre of human life and its comprehension, rather than the mechanical and chemical processes of Nature. If you think that "ideas" are simply chimera inside our heads, then, of course, Hegel's idealism seems like madness. Yes, all the Marxists have blasted Hegel. As they must. Otherwise they must end up advocates of Constitutional Monarchy. But while Marx uses almost every mention he makes of Hegel to criticise him, often in extreme terms, it can go unnoticed the extent to which in practice Marx follows Hegel in philosophy. Of course Marx is not equal to Hegel, but simple formulae do not contribute to understanding the relation. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 15/10/2017 6:51 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > Andy, > > Let me first apologize to David Kellog because in others' > wandering and perplexity it was he who in his reading of > Gramsci's prison letters came across this point and made > you not only accept the inappropriateness of Hegel's > headstand as Crowning every worldly affair deriving from > the People's Heads "Idea" , "Absolute" but also > intensifying this point with more examples and references > from Engels' "utopian versus genuine socialism" on your > part. Of course you've been helping us on many occasions > and you're very welcome for this nothing to be denied. > > At this point we have no problem with translation. > Leontiev meant it. > > Suppose that ANL does not know "individual" which is very > ambiguous because in what then one should seek the > embodiment of the "particular" and if one takes the very > particular as individual , then everything gets mixed up . > Then what about you who stick firmly on individual > discrete detached activities as an objection to Sasha's > sole ACTIVITY as theoretical understanding. > > As you well know even AN activity is not a thing ; it's a > process. And you once distinguished between GENERAL WORK > ACTIVITY and LABOUR ACTIVITY or VALORIZATION ACTIVITY > which was quite right and timely though you recently gave > differing definitions in no way harmonious to your > previous definitions. But the main problem is blending > clarity in expression with concrete in theory. No doubt > you're a Fan of Hegel. I should repeat myself : Hegel is a > hero of theoretical concepts. In theorizing , and for him > to explicate the Essence of Phenomena , he begins with > apparently concrete things as ABSTRACTS finally reaches > CONCRETE UNIVERSALS as concepts. And here we again very > surprisingly see you put your finger upon what you should > have known in person is contrary to your own erudition. > Turning Hegel down as believing in discrete abstracts. > > And now to his son's comment : What individual are you > pursuing? Your Hegel sees phenomena in their relations. > According to him and also according to ANL ACTIVITY as a > unit of Life is Molar non-additive. He even does not see > operations as single acts. It's a matter of the angle of > vision not detachment and concreteness. If his son had > talked of concreteness in moments of activity , then you > were right in your objections and oppositions. You please > give us your last definition of activity here (not in > lengthy references) so that we can have a discerning > option. > So far to remove the problem we should accept operations > are separately and independently carried out ; actions in > their own are carried out ; activities are carried out > arbitrarily. And these are done to the realization of man > as the ensemble of social relations based on some > infrastructure. > > Hegel's metaphor has been thrown back at him by Marx , > Engels , Lenin , Vygotsky , Ilyenko , and many others. If > you like to stand above all Giants of Marxism , it's > something perfectly and absolutely Personal as you're > speaking out loud! Then why give us so many references. > > Best > > Haydi > > P.S. Alfredo! Though you have my previous private response > concerning the matters you pose I see myself accountable > to rewrite them to the Public. Thanks! > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Andy Blunden > *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > *Sent:* Sunday, 15 October 2017, 5:35:40 > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity > and communication > > Haydi, partly the problem with ANL's > philosophy-as-we-know-it is simply a product of its > translation into English. But partly it is also in his > philosophy. As Victor Kaptelinin first pointed out (so far > as I know), ANL knows the universal and the particular but > he does not know the individual. And his son's comment that > ANL did not conceive of Activity as being discrete proves > this to be the case. Thus his concept of Activity is not a > fully concrete concept. And this is not a product of > translation. > > As David Kellogg has kindly pointed out to me, it was Hegel > who actually first introduced this metaphor of people > "walking (or standing) on their heads." Personally, I don't > think it has ever helped anyone understand the defect of > Hegel's philosophy to throw this metaphor back at him. As > demonstrated in this issue (the concept of activity) it was > Hegel who understood that a concept must have all three > moments - universal, particular and individual. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 15/10/2017 9:24 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > > Dear Mike, > > Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an > activist for his concreteness and clarifications is > crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot > ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes , Parts , > and Moments. He personally provided us with examples from > Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they convert > Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced with the > same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most > valuable contribution) does not begin with the individual > case in isolation which phenomenologically speaking (in > contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for > appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not obtained > because one instance is considered detached from all > relations and its subservience to the service of the > Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is particular in > some feature/s. And these particulars are essential. With > other particulars in other individuals they are related > actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense , this whole > could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life itself. > Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is , > with category and concept only therefore , following Marx > and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again on his > feet (not that the firmament to that time did put "idea" > on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on their > heads but to put them again headstand thinking and acting > with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just > with their brains. Then taking all options in translation > even that of a Machine into consideration it does not seem > to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of > Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of > activities thereafter. These activities are those arising > from the properties of versatile objects in turn arising > from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile > needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think > Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual > activities as moments with the broadest idea of the > Monistic Substantial Modes or States in Philosophical > terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn integrate and > are dissolved into Monism of Substance. > > > > Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche > (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one > Substance) is already there with the organism actively and > spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own , > positioning its due object and moving along its contours > and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to itself > , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and > bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as > novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with > Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with a huge > gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of > consciousness , now apparently ascending to "wording" and > "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration) further > "communication" as something indispensable and necessary > and inevitable to the realization of life affairs. > > Best > > Haydi > > > > > > From: mike cole > > > To: Andy Blunden >; "eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity" > > > Cc: Alexander Surmava >; ivan-dgf > >; Ivan > Uemlianin >; > Haydi Zulfei > > > Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50 > > Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity and communication > > > > Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.Could someone post > the Russian text next to the English so that it is > possible to compare it with the translation? I spent > several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of > Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally defeated > me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra rubles in > my pocket. > > Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us > a "true" translation. > > mike > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > > > The Progress Publishers English translation of "Activity and > > Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of > > Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: > > > > Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, > > material life of the material subject. In the narrower > > sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a unit of > > life, mediated by mental reflection, by > > an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the > > subject in the objective world. > > > > In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The > > Development of Mind" we have: > > > > Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an > > organism?s activity; the different activities that realise > > its diverse vital relations with the surrounding reality are > > essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore > > differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively > > different] types of activity according to the difference in > > their objects. > > > > By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses > > "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has > > been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for > > English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean simply > > "category." The second does the same, but in addition makes > > it evident that the plural does not refer to different > > activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the > > possibility of forming a true concept of activity > altogether. > > > > With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is > > simply that "such an initial *category* can only be > > object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing > > that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, > > even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. > > > > Andy > > ------------------------------ > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Andy Blunden > > http://www.ethicalpolitics. > org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: > >> Dear Andy! > >> I am glad that our communication was resumed after many > >> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and files > >> and found that the problem of "object oriented activity OR > >> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before > >> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is serious and > >> it deserves to return to it today. > >> Last year I was close to being silent forever. > >> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed > >> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the > >> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my > >> theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my > >> descendants :-). > >> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not > >> understand your question. What means the distinction > >> between singular and plural number in your remark? Could > >> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the > >> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my > >> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, > >> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of > >> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my dissertation > >> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's "Theory of > >> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, > >> having understood the theoretic meaning of your claims to > >> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily > >> understand the essence of your objections to me. > >> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I > >> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a > >> particular empirical case of its manifestation. Therefore, > >> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just like > >> Matter, Nature, or Substance. > >> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come across > >> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its > >> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the > >> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old > >> philosophers and that only the numerous individual "atomic > >> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really > >> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar > >> positivism and empiricism. > >> However, all of this may not apply to your position ... > >> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. > >> Best wishes > >> Sasha > >> > >> > >> > >> ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden > >> > ?????(?): > >> > >> > >> I'll ask Sasha a question. > >> > >> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial > >> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it > stands, > >> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be > that you > >> are translating it from a Russian statement that is > correct. > >> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in when I > >> say "every activity has an object." But in your expression > >> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and > unless > >> you are a religious person is not something which can > have a > >> specific object. All English translations of A N Leontyev > >> make this mistake which has caused no end of confusion > among > >> English-speakers. > >> > >> Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," just as > >> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." > >> > >> Andy > >> > >> ------------------------------ > ------------------------------ > >> Andy Blunden > >> http://www.ethicalpolitics. > org/ablunden/index.htm > >> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > >>> Dear Sasha, all, > >>> > >>> > >>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding > >> response. I think you are right in your assertion that we > >> are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of > >> CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. However, one > >> can see in the lack of response by other members?? that > >> not everyone has the privilege of the time it requires to > >> go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing > >> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce and I > >> hope it is/will be appreciated as such. > >>> > >>> If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I quote > >> from your response: > >>> > >>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial category, > >> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us > >> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will > >> choose the one of the two categories from which one can > >> derive the entire diversity of human life, including > >> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that > >> such an initial category can only be object-oriented > >> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the > >> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from > >> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such > >> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or > >> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" > >>> > >>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework > >> according to which we are looking of the most original > >> germ cell, the one from which all others can be > >> developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I > >> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree on > that. > >>> > >>> But ??once we are back to the development of a concrete > >> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact that, for > >> any child to participate in human forms of object-oriented > >> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented > >> activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular > >> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into those > >> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category > >> devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with > >> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you describe, is > >> this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, or is > >> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? > >>> > >>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others answer > >> (which I hope some do). > >>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: > >>> > >>> > >>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in > >> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of teaching > >> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this > >> is only possible through *involvement* in collective > >> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary > >> over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is > >> only possible in and through object-oriented activity). > >> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional aspect of > >> the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to > >> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this > >> object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all > >> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually > >> uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such > >> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get > >> collective activity without them? On this, and precisely > >> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of Man", > >> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in that > >> case that communication is included in activity and is its > >> essential component: without relation to another > >> person(s), activity is impossible' (144). Although I not > >> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I can't > >> see how he can be wrong. > >>> > >>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of > >> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the > >> category of object-oriented activity, is most primary. Let > >> me also note that ?there are other authors who have > >> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you > >> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on > >> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom > >> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of auto-affection' ( > >> https://www.amazon.com/ Incarnation-Philosophy- > Studies-Phenomenology- Existential/dp/0810131269 > >> ) > >>> > >>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I wonder > >> whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity > >> and communication. Is not the distinction just an artefact > >> of a partial understanding of what it means activity and > >> what it means communicating. I still feel that > >> communication, in the sense of addressivity that Mikhailov > >> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for > >> semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity > >> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't > >> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps > >> naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication > >> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in > >> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I > >> don't see how any practical activity can have any sense > >> (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. > >> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are > >> talking about; one machines could perform on their own > >> without consciousness. ? > >>> > >>> Best wishes, > >>> > >>> Alfredo > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ______________________________ __ > >>> From: Alexander Surmava > >> > > >>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 > >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >> edu>; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo > >> Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole > >>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication > >>> > >>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > >>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, > >> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before > >> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica > >> aside) :-) > >>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is > >> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, > >> based on the general principles accepted in its framework > >> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a > >> common, unifying conception are usually considered the > >> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. > >> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions > >> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the > >> interpretation of these concepts. > >>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle > >> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible > >> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is > >> possible to consider both objective activity and > >> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe > >> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to > >> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? > >>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar > >> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry > >> and without answering them in the most general form, we > >> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this > >> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, > >> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical > >> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that > >> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, > >> based on which we can practically solve socially > >> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently > >> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the > >> interesting only for us theoretical > >> verbiage multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ > 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> > >> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical > >> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between > >> Vygotsky and Leontiev. > >>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too > >> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and > >> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central > >> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > >>> Agitprop > >>> sticks > >>> in my teeth too, > >>> and I?d rather > >>> compose > >>> romances for you - > >>> more profit in it > >>> and more charm. > >>> But I > >>> subdued > >>> myself, > >>> setting my heel > >>> on the throat > >>> of my own song. > >>> Vladimir Mayakovski > >>> > >>> ? ??? > >>> ???????? > >>> ? ????? ?????, > >>> ? ??? ?? > >>> ???????? > >>> ??????? ?? ??? ? > >>> ???????? ??? > >>> ? ??????????. > >>> ?? ? > >>> ???? > >>> ??????, > >>> ????????? > >>> ?? ????? > >>> ??????????? ?????. > >>> ???????? ?????????? > >>> > >>> > >>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced > >> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to > >> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to > >> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally > >> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract > >> to the concrete. > >>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions > >> about how to understand the principle of interaction as > >> such and about the relationship of object oriented > >> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer > >> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed > >> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in > >> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF > >> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian > >> ???????? ?????? ???????????? > >> ???????????? academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% > D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . > >> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the > >> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is > >> available in English. It was even sent in published in > >> English international journal... but for some strange > >> reason was not published then or later. > >>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, > >> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text > >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > CONSCIOUSNESS. > >>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to > >> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction > >> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case > >> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two > >> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach > >> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my > >> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should > >> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious > >> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the > >> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the > >> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object > >> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing > >> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic > >> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? > >> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the > >> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" > >> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, > >> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism > >> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense > >> that one can not in principle separate out its active and > >> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in > >> the process of positing of an object one side is active, > >> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There > >> are many interesting differences between them, but let us > >> return to this somehow later. > >>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation > >> work of 1988: > >>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation > >> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two > >> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken > >> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is > >> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It > >> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to > >> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) > >> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? > >> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant > >> leaves (with his telescope). > >>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation > >> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously > >> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital > activity. > >>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, > >> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not > >> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. > >> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not > >> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with > >> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. > >> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not > >> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be > >> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism > >> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing > >> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into > >> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it > >> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of > >> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive > relation.? > >>> Now about the object oriented activity and > >> communication, and it does not matter whether in the > >> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's > >> "addressing" to another person. > >>> Which of these two categories should be considered > >> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to > >> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness > >> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and > >> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology > >> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and > Ilyenkov. > >>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want > >> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the > >> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the > >> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers > >> believed that the method of ascent, the method of > >> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to > >> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical > >> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one > >> thing - either activity or communication. And at first > >> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a > >> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course > >> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic > >> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human > >> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single > >> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the > >> social relations.. " > >>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's > >> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely > >> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to > >> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology > >> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then > >> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely > >> difficult situation, because the classics left us with > >> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it > >> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, > >> and with which in the second, it would still have to be > >> solved by ourselves. > >>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this > >> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A > >> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was AN > >> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly > >> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented > >> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second > >> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of > >> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was inclined to > >> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, > >> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" > >> were for communication. > >>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our > >> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal > >> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our > >> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a > >> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the > >> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something > >> rather indecent. > >>> The end of the discussion between supporters of > >> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also > >> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, > >> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing > >> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was > >> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was > >> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of > >> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of > >> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a > >> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader > >> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in > >> the ideological department of the Central Committee of > >> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific > >> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in > >> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the > >> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters > >> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's > >> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE > >> could not reverse the situation too. > >>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to > >> "communication" and "activity." > >>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, > >> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us > >> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will > >> choose the one of the two categories from which one can > >> derive the entire diversity of human life, including > >> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that > >> such an initial category can only be object-oriented > >> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the > >> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from > >> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such > >> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or > >> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. > >>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact > >> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive > >> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and > >> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first > >> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, > >> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic > >> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course > >> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. > >> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external > >> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, > >> together and practically producing their own lives, > >> assumes a specifically human character, being a > >> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. > >>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" > >> communication and the affective side of life are taken not > >> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of > >> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as > >> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s > >> REFLEXIVE side. > >>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my > >> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a > >> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the > >> relation of objective activity and "communication". In the > >> same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, > >> the active relation of the subject to the object and to > >> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, > >> indeed, any other, psychology. > >>> ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????, > >> ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, > >> ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, > >> ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? > >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > CONSCIOUSNESS > >> ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. > >>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable > >> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, > >> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the > >> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large > >> English text > >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > CONSCIOUSNESS > >> and read it to the end :-). > >>> ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN > >> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? > >> ???????????? academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> > >>> ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? > >> ??????????? ???????? > >> https://www.avramus.com/app/ > download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% > BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% > D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% > D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% > D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% > BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 > >> . > >>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > >>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, > >> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before > >> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica > >> aside) :-) > >>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is > >> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, > >> based on the general principles accepted in its framework > >> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a > >> common, unifying conception are usually considered the > >> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. > >> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions > >> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the > >> interpretation of these concepts. > >>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle > >> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible > >> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is > >> possible to consider both objective activity and > >> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe > >> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to > >> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? > >>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar > >> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry > >> and without answering them in the most general form, we > >> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this > >> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, > >> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical > >> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that > >> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, > >> based on which we can practically solve socially > >> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently > >> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the > >> interesting only for us theoretical > >> verbiage multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ > 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> > >> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical > >> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between > >> Vygotsky and Leontiev. > >>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too > >> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and > >> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central > >> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > >>> Agitprop > >>> sticks > >>> in my teeth too, > >>> and I?d rather > >>> compose > >>> romances for you - > >>> more profit in it > >>> and more charm. > >>> But I > >>> subdued > >>> myself, > >>> setting my heel > >>> on the throat > >>> of my own song. > >>> Vladimir Mayakovski > >>> > >>> ? ??? > >>> ???????? > >>> ? ????? ?????, > >>> ? ??? ?? > >>> ???????? > >>> ??????? ?? ??? ? > >>> ???????? ??? > >>> ? ??????????. > >>> ?? ? > >>> ???? > >>> ??????, > >>> ????????? > >>> ?? ????? > >>> ??????????? ?????. > >>> ???????? ?????????? > >>> > >>> > >>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced > >> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to > >> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to > >> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally > >> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract > >> to the concrete. > >>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions > >> about how to understand the principle of interaction as > >> such and about the relationship of object oriented > >> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer > >> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed > >> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in > >> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF > >> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian > >> ???????? ?????? ???????????? > >> ???????????? academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% > D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . > >> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the > >> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is > >> available in English. It was even sent in published in > >> English international journal... but for some strange > >> reason was not published then or later. > >>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, > >> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text > >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > CONSCIOUSNESS. > >>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to > >> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction > >> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case > >> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two > >> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach > >> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my > >> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should > >> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious > >> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the > >> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the > >> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object > >> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing > >> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic > >> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? > >> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the > >> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" > >> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, > >> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism > >> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense > >> that one can not in principle separate out its active and > >> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in > >> the process of positing of an object one side is active, > >> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There > >> are many interesting differences between them, but let us > >> return to this somehow later. > >>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation > >> work of 1988: > >>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation > >> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two > >> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken > >> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is > >> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It > >> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to > >> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) > >> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? > >> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant > >> leaves (with his telescope). > >>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation > >> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously > >> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital > activity. > >>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, > >> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not > >> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. > >> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not > >> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with > >> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. > >> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not > >> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be > >> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism > >> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing > >> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into > >> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it > >> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of > >> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive > relation.? > >>> Now about the object oriented activity and > >> communication, and it does not matter whether in the > >> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's > >> "addressing" to another person. > >>> Which of these two categories should be considered > >> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to > >> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness > >> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and > >> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology > >> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and > Ilyenkov. > >>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want > >> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the > >> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the > >> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers > >> believed that the method of ascent, the method of > >> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to > >> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical > >> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one > >> thing - either activity or communication. And at first > >> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a > >> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course > >> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic > >> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human > >> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single > >> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the > >> social relations.. " > >>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's > >> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely > >> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to > >> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology > >> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then > >> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely > >> difficult situation, because the classics left us with > >> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it > >> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, > >> and with which in the second, it would still have to be > >> solved by ourselves. > >>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this > >> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A > >> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was > >> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly > >> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented > >> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second > >> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas > >> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was > >> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other > >> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas > >> "Leningraders" were for "communication". > >>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our > >> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a literal > >> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our > >> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a > >> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the > >> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something > >> rather indecent. > >>> The end of the discussion between supporters of > >> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also > >> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, > >> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing > >> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was > >> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was > >> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of > >> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of > >> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a > >> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader > >> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in > >> the ideological department of the Central Committee of > >> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific > >> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in > >> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the > >> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters > >> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's > >> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE > >> could not reverse the situation too. > >>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to > >> "communication" and "activity." > >>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, > >> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us > >> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will > >> choose the one of the two categories from which one can > >> derive the entire diversity of human life, including > >> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that > >> such an initial category can only be object-oriented > >> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the > >> object oriented activity, which is an attribute property > >> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, > >> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we > >> will never get life or object oriented activity even with > >> the greatest diligence. > >>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact > >> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive > >> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and > >> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first > >> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, > >> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic > >> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course > >> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. > >>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external > >> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, > >> together and practically producing their own lives, > >> assumes a specifically human character, being a > >> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. > >>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" > >> communication and the affective side of life are taken not > >> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of > >> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as > >> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s > >> REFLEXIVE side. > >>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my diploma > >> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist > >> theoretical solution to the question of the relation of > >> objective activity and "communication". In the same time, > >> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active > >> relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is > >> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, > >> any other, psychology. > >>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable > >> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, > >> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the > >> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large > >> English text > >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > CONSCIOUSNESS > >> and read it to the end :-). > >>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN > >> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? > >> ???????????? academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> > >>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short > >> English one > >> https://www.avramus.com/app/ > download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% > BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% > D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% > D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% > D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% > BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. > >>> Sasha > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Sun Oct 15 03:58:54 2017 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 10:58:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> Message-ID: <1989156995.221376.1508065134425@mail.yahoo.com> To take a hammer as ONE PROCESS , to take a worker who works with it as ANOTHER PROCESS , to take the ditch he digs as ANOTHER PROCESS , to take GESTURES involved as OTHER NUMERABLE PROCESSES , to take each drop of sweat flowing down the face and neck and chest ANOTHER PROCESS etc. etc. , simultaneously emphasizing they are unrelated discreet PROCESSES of which RECOGNITION arises is jokingly a fun (pardon a PROCESS!!) in A PROCESS--?? tautology.? In my confusion as always when talking to a Professor I conjecture saying the Final Product of a PROCESS could be more wise and philosophical as well.? It's me who interprets "a thing , a corporal object" as meaning something discrete not you who take procedures and durational enduring enterprises (maybe you like your project thing to be thusly named which does not work) as SUCH!! My objection was against what you the other day the other day tried to prove to us : that modern state comprises moments , that Hegel did not see the revolt of the workers , that "wholes convert parts into moments" , etc. Your grandeur requires following your addressee's genuine intentions.? You speak in abstractions because you rightfully asserted that entities could comprise parts but Wholes are not in tune with Parts (discrete) but in tune with moments in momentary flux and ebbs. In such a situation you cannot halt the whole from moving and discern segmentation and excision. That's what a project cannot come to terms with but activity can as you testify from ANL's son. ? ? For Hegel social practices or , say , life affairs exist but what's Primary for him is "Idea". Social practices ALIENATE ESTRANGE from It. Or philosophically they go being Finites versus itself being Infinite. They yet always tend to return to their origin of existence , the Idea. When someone says "Praxis" is Hegel's it's obvious that he wants to replace Marx with Hegel and as far as I know it's not new from you!? It's not a matter of phantoms and chimeras reigning our heads and bodies but what you likely purposely conceal is the Origin of ideas. Ideas falling down the Earth from Heaven or from nobody knows where. The Third which could have compromised Body and Soul not least capacious to come together. As to the Constitutional Monarchy , I should say the Paris Commune Memoirs still luminates over touchable horizons. Many outstanding figures on the anniversary of the October Revolution contributed to its Commemoration including Sean Sayers. Your last words shows your heartfelt intentions!? Best Haydi From: Andy Blunden To: ?Haydi Zulfei? ? ; "xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu" Sent: Sunday, 15 October 2017, 11:43:21 Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Haydi, you say "AN activity is not a thing ; it's a process." I wonder then what is a thing which is not also a process? (I interpret "thing" as meaning "something discrete," otherwise your objection makes no sense.) The point is that Hegel does not make this dichotomy - every thing is also a process and vice versa. That a process is also discreet is important because it is only thanks to its discreteness that we can cognise the process and in fact only thanks to its discreteness that a process can affect anything else. To speak of processes which are not also discrete is to speak in abstractions. On this point, when Hegel puts ideas above matter, it has to be realised that for Hegel "ideas" are social practices - he is simply place human practice at the centre of human life and its comprehension, rather than the mechanical and chemical processes of Nature. If you think that "ideas" are simply chimera inside our heads, then, of course, Hegel's idealism seems like madness. Yes, all the Marxists have blasted Hegel. As they must. Otherwise they must end up advocates of Constitutional Monarchy. But while Marx uses almost every mention he makes of Hegel to criticise him, often in extreme terms, it can go unnoticed the extent to which in practice Marx follows Hegel in philosophy. Of course Marx is not equal to Hegel, but simple formulae do not contribute to understanding the relation. Andy Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 15/10/2017 6:51 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: Andy, Let me first apologize to David Kellog because in others' wandering and perplexity it was he who in his reading of Gramsci's prison letters came across this point and made you not only accept the inappropriateness of Hegel's headstand as Crowning every worldly affair deriving from the People's Heads "Idea" , "Absolute" but also intensifying this point with more examples and references from Engels' "utopian versus genuine socialism" on your part. Of course you've been helping us on many occasions and? you're very welcome for this nothing to be denied. At this point we have no problem with translation. Leontiev meant it. Suppose that ANL does not know "individual" which is very ambiguous because in what then one should seek the embodiment of the "particular" and if one takes the very particular as individual , then everything gets mixed up . Then what about you who stick firmly on individual discrete detached activities as an objection to Sasha's sole ACTIVITY as theoretical understanding. As you well know even AN activity is not a thing ; it's a process. And you once distinguished between GENERAL WORK ACTIVITY and LABOUR ACTIVITY or VALORIZATION ACTIVITY which was quite right and timely though you recently gave differing definitions in no way harmonious to your previous definitions. But the main problem is blending clarity in expression with concrete in theory. No doubt you're a Fan of Hegel. I should repeat myself : Hegel is a hero of theoretical concepts. In theorizing , and for him to explicate the Essence of Phenomena , he begins with apparently concrete things as ABSTRACTS finally reaches CONCRETE UNIVERSALS as concepts. And here we again very surprisingly see you put your finger upon what you should have known in person is contrary to your own erudition. Turning Hegel down as believing in discrete abstracts. And now to his son's comment : What individual are you pursuing? Your Hegel sees phenomena in their relations. According to him and also according to ANL ACTIVITY as a unit of Life is Molar non-additive. He even does not see operations as single acts. It's a matter of the angle of vision not detachment and concreteness. If his son had talked of concreteness in moments of activity , then you were right in your objections and oppositions. You please give us your last definition of activity here (not in lengthy references) so that we can have a discerning option. ? ? ? So far to remove the problem we should accept operations are separately and independently carried out ; actions in their own are carried out ; activities are carried out arbitrarily. And these are done to the realization of man as the ensemble of social relations based on some infrastructure. Hegel's metaphor has been thrown back at him by Marx , Engels , Lenin , Vygotsky , Ilyenko , and many others. If you like to stand above all Giants of Marxism , it's something perfectly and absolutely Personal as you're speaking out loud! Then why give us so many references.? Best Haydi P.S. Alfredo! Though you have my previous private response concerning the matters you pose I see myself accountable to rewrite them to the Public. Thanks! From: Andy Blunden To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Sent: Sunday, 15 October 2017, 5:35:40 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Haydi, partly the problem with ANL's philosophy-as-we-know-it is simply a product of its translation into English. But partly it is also in his philosophy. As Victor Kaptelinin first pointed out (so far as I know), ANL knows the universal and the particular but he does not know the individual. And his son's comment that ANL did not conceive of Activity as being discrete proves this to be the case. Thus his concept of Activity is not a fully concrete concept. And this is not a product of translation. As David Kellogg has kindly pointed out to me, it was Hegel who actually first introduced this metaphor of people "walking (or standing) on their heads." Personally, I don't think it has ever helped anyone understand the defect of Hegel's philosophy to throw this metaphor back at him. As demonstrated in this issue (the concept of activity) it was Hegel who understood that a concept must have all three moments - universal, particular and individual. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 15/10/2017 9:24 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > Dear Mike, > Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an activist for his concreteness and clarifications is crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes , Parts , and Moments. He personally provided us with examples from Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they convert Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced with the same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most valuable contribution) does not begin with the individual case in isolation which phenomenologically? speaking (in contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not obtained because one instance is considered detached from all relations and its subservience to the service of the Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is particular in some feature/s. And these particulars are essential. With other particulars in other individuals they are related actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense , this whole could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life itself. Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is , with category and concept only therefore , following Marx and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again on his feet (not that the firmament to that time did put "idea" on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on their heads but to put them again headstand thinking and acting with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just with their brains. Then taking all options in translation even that of a Machine into consideration it does not seem to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of activities thereafter. These activities are those arising from the properties of versatile objects in turn arising from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual activities as moments with the broadest idea of the Monistic Substantial Modes or States in Philosophical terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn integrate and are dissolved into Monism of Substance. > > Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one Substance) is already there with the organism actively and spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own , positioning its due object and moving along its contours and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to itself , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with a huge gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of consciousness , now apparently ascending to "wording" and "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration) further "communication" as something indispensable and necessary and inevitable to the realization of life affairs. > Best > Haydi? ? ? > > >? ? ? From: mike cole >? To: Andy Blunden ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc: Alexander Surmava ; ivan-dgf ; Ivan Uemlianin ; Haydi Zulfei >? Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50 >? Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >? ? > Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.Could someone post the Russian text next to the English so that it is possible to compare it with the translation? I spent several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally defeated me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra rubles in my pocket. > Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us a "true" translation. > mike > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > The Progress Publishers English translation of "Activity and > Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of > Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: > >? ? Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, >? ? material life of the material subject. In the narrower >? ? sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a unit of >? ? life, mediated by mental reflection, by >? ? an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the >? ? subject in the objective world. > > In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The > Development of Mind" we have: > > Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an > organism?s activity; the different activities that realise > its diverse vital relations with the surrounding reality are > essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore > differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively > different] types of activity according to the difference in > their objects. > > By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses > "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has > been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for > English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean simply > "category." The second does the same, but in addition makes > it evident that the plural does not refer to different > activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the > possibility of forming a true concept of activity altogether. > > With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is > simply that "such an initial *category* can only be > object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing > that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, > even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. > > Andy > ------------------------------ ------------------------------ > > > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics. org/ablunden/index.htm > On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: >> Dear Andy! >> I am glad that our communication was resumed after many >> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and files >> and found that the problem of "object oriented activity OR >> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before >> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is serious and >> it deserves to return to it today. >> Last year I was close to being silent forever. >> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed >> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the >> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my >> theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my >> descendants :-). >> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not >> understand your question. What means the distinction >> between singular and plural number in your remark? Could >> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the >> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my >> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, >> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of >> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my dissertation >> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's "Theory of >> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, >> having understood the theoretic meaning of your claims to >> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily >> understand the essence of your objections to me. >> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I >> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a >> particular empirical case of its manifestation. Therefore, >> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just like >> Matter, Nature, or Substance. >> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come across >> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its >> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the >> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old >> philosophers and that only the numerous individual "atomic >> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really >> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar >> positivism and empiricism. >> However, all of this may not apply to your position ... >> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. >> Best wishes >> Sasha >> >> >> >> ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden >> ?????(?): >> >> >> I'll ask Sasha a question. >> >> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial >> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it stands, >> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be that you >> are translating it from a Russian statement that is correct. >> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in when I >> say "every activity has an object."? But in your expression >> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and unless >> you are a religious person is not something which can have a >> specific object. All English translations of A N Leontyev >> make this mistake which has caused no end of confusion among >> English-speakers. >> >> Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," just as >> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------ ------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics. org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>> Dear Sasha, all, >>> >>> >>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding >> response. I think you are right in your assertion that we >> are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of >> CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. However, one >> can see in the lack of response by other members?? that >> not everyone has the privilege of the time it requires to >> go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing >> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce and I >> hope it is/will be appreciated as such. >>> >>> If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I quote >> from your response: >>> >>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" >>> >>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework >> according to which we are looking of the most original >> germ cell, the one from which all others can be >> developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I >> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree on that. >>> >>> But ??once we are back to the development of a concrete >> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact that, for >> any child to participate in human forms of object-oriented >> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented >> activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular >> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into those >> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category >> devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with >> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you describe, is >> this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, or is >> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? >>> >>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others answer >> (which I hope some do). >>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: >>> >>> >>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in >> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of teaching >> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this >> is only possible through *involvement* in collective >> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary >> over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is >> only possible in and through object-oriented activity). >> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional aspect of >> the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to >> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this >> object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all >> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually >> uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such >> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get >> collective activity without them? On this, and precisely >> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of Man", >> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in that >> case that communication is included in activity and is its >> essential component: without relation to another >> person(s), activity is impossible'? (144). Although I not >> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I can't >> see how he can be wrong. >>> >>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of >> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the >> category of object-oriented activity, is most primary. Let >> me also note that ?there are other authors who have >> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you >> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on >> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom >> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of auto-affection' ( >> https://www.amazon.com/ Incarnation-Philosophy- Studies-Phenomenology- Existential/dp/0810131269 >> ) >>> >>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I wonder >> whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity >> and communication. Is not the distinction just an artefact >> of a partial understanding of what it means activity and >> what it means communicating. I still feel that >> communication, in the sense of addressivity that Mikhailov >> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for >> semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity >> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't >> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps >> naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication >> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in >> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I >> don't see how any practical activity can have any sense >> (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. >> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are >> talking about; one machines could perform on their own >> without consciousness. ? >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Alfredo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ______________________________ __ >>> From: Alexander Surmava > > >>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >> ; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo >> Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole >>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication >>> >>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >> aside) :-) >>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >> interpretation of these concepts. >>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >> possible to consider both objective activity and >> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >> and without answering them in the most general form, we >> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >> based on which we can practically solve socially >> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >> interesting only for us theoretical >> verbiage >> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>> Agitprop >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? sticks >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? in my teeth too, >>> and I?d rather >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? compose >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? romances for you - >>> more profit in it >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? and more charm. >>> But I >>>? ? ? ? subdued >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? myself, >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? setting my heel >>> on the throat >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of my own song. >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Vladimir Mayakovski >>> >>> ? ??? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????? ?????, >>> ? ??? ?? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????? ?? ??? ? >>> ???????? ??? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????. >>> ?? ? >>>? ? ? ? ???? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????, >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????????? >>> ?? ????? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????? ?????. >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? ?????????? >>> >>> >>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >> to the concrete. >>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >> such and about the relationship of object oriented >> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >> ???????????? . >> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >> available in English. It was even sent in published in >> English international journal... but for some strange >> reason was not published then or later. >>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS. >>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >> return to this somehow later. >>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >> work of 1988: >>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >> leaves (with his telescope). >>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital activity. >>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive relation.? >>> Now about the object oriented activity and >> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >> "addressing" to another person. >>> Which of these two categories should be considered >> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and Ilyenkov. >>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >> social relations.. " >>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >> solved by ourselves. >>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was AN >> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of >> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was inclined to >> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, >> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" >> were for communication. >>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal >> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >> rather indecent. >>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed? supporters >> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >> could not reverse the situation too. >>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >> "communication" and "activity." >>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. >>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >> together and practically producing their own lives, >> assumes a specifically human character, being a >> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >> REFLEXIVE side. >>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my >> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a >> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the >> relation of objective activity and "communication". In the >> same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, >> the active relation of the subject to the object and to >> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, >> indeed, any other, psychology. >>> ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????, >> ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, >> ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, >> ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS >> ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. >>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >> English text >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS >> and read it to the end :-). >>> ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >> ???????????? >>> ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? >> ??????????? ???????? >> https://www.avramus.com/app/ download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 >> . >>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >> aside) :-) >>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >> interpretation of these concepts. >>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >> possible to consider both objective activity and >> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >> and without answering them in the most general form, we >> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >> based on which we can practically solve socially >> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >> interesting only for us theoretical >> verbiage >> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>> Agitprop >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? sticks >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? in my teeth too, >>> and I?d rather >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? compose >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? romances for you - >>> more profit in it >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? and more charm. >>> But I >>>? ? ? ? subdued >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? myself, >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? setting my heel >>> on the throat >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of my own song. >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Vladimir Mayakovski >>> >>> ? ??? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????? ?????, >>> ? ??? ?? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????? ?? ??? ? >>> ???????? ??? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????. >>> ?? ? >>>? ? ? ? ???? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????, >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????????? >>> ?? ????? >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????? ?????. >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? ?????????? >>> >>> >>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >> to the concrete. >>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >> such and about the relationship of object oriented >> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >> ???????????? . >> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >> available in English. It was even sent in published in >> English international journal... but for some strange >> reason was not published then or later. >>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS. >>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >> return to this somehow later. >>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >> work of 1988: >>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >> leaves (with his telescope). >>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital activity. >>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive relation.? >>> Now about the object oriented activity and >> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >> "addressing" to another person. >>> Which of these two categories should be considered >> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and Ilyenkov. >>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >> social relations.. " >>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >> solved by ourselves. >>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was >> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas >> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was >> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other >> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas >> "Leningraders" were for "communication". >>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a literal >> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >> rather indecent. >>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed? supporters >> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >> could not reverse the situation too. >>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >> "communication" and "activity." >>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >> object oriented activity, which is an attribute property >> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, >> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we >> will never get life or object oriented activity even with >> the greatest diligence. >>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >> together and practically producing their own lives, >> assumes a specifically human character, being a >> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >> REFLEXIVE side. >>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my diploma >> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist >> theoretical solution to the question of the relation of >> objective activity and "communication". In the same time, >> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active >> relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is >> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, >> any other, psychology. >>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >> English text >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS >> and read it to the end :-). >>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >> ???????????? >>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short >> English one >> https://www.avramus.com/app/ download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. >>> Sasha >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > >? ? > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Oct 15 15:48:35 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:48:35 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> Message-ID: Of course, neither an object nor a process is discrete (or even, as Andy says, "discreet"). Who can tell me where a mountain river ends and the alluvial plain begins? Certainly not Cezanne or the phenomenologists who so loved him. Yet a mountain is most assuredly an object, just as surely as climbing the mountain to ascertain its degree of montagnitude is a process. This last week I've been struggling through the "Curriculum Reforms" wrought by three right wing governments in Norway, Finland, and New Zealand. Like Catalonia, these are all countries where unpopular coalitions of right parties are replacing a much more popular but obviously unsuccessful social democratic coalition of left parties. In Norway and in Finland, the coalition actually includes the far right, neo-fascist, anti-immigrant parties, and in New Zealand it includes the ACT, that is, an "association of consumers and taxpayers" whose main interest is cutting education budgets, starting by making teachers and students fight each other for scarce resources in the form of "block grants". Now, all of these governments are more or less bound by something called DeSeCo, which is short for Describe and Select Competences. This is because right-wing ideology sees education not as a public good but as a commodity, to be judged by tangible results and priced accordingly. This presents a real theoretical problem for right-wingers, because they ALSO see that "flexible labor markets" and "entrepreneurial spirit" means that there isn't any way of deciding on what skills or even what knowledge the "economy of the future" will demand. We can see this in the emphasis on "competence". Competence is not a thing or a process, and it is neither discrete nor discreet. Of course, if you are a linguist, competence is something Chomsky thought of in the sixties, an abstract form of knowledge in a hypothetical native speaker-hearer in an imaginary homogenous speech community. It is "discrete" in the sense of being nowhere and nowhen connectible to performance in any way. It is therefore "discreet" in the sense of being untestable--as soon as you test it, you have a form of performance, not competence. It's like standing in front of a classroom with a picture of a guy swimming and trying to teach the expression "i can swim". What you have in the picture is not "I can swim"; it's manifestly "he is swimming". But in DeSeCo, you get these lists of competences, which are set up as if they were discrete so you can list them on a Powerpoint slide and sell them to ministries of education. And the real selling point is that, on the one hand, because they are all "meta-skills" and "meta-knowledges", they don't have any practical outcome or real commitment to a job and a livelihood. And on the other, they sound terribly powerful when you phrase them as "learning to learn" or "transversal competence" or "meta-cognitive skills" or something like that. Jobs, in other words, are discretionary. After centuries of promising jobs and livelhood in return for school and boredom, the Western economies have decided that sticks are cheaper than carrots, and the thing to do is simply to rule people who don't have educational certificates out of the job market rather than try to provide actual know-how and factual know-that. Here are my four favorites (i.e. the four that we stress in our own curricular reform here in South Korea): interpersonal competence (sociability, the ability to 'be alone with others' as Hughlings Jackson put it) cultural competence (enculturation, the ability to understand traditions, mores, and norms) creative competence (intelligence, innovation, yadda yadda) individual competence (the ability to dress yourself, feed yourself, and show up for an interview where you will not be offered a job) Vygotsky, as usual, has a better idea--it's a mountain. We just turn the DeSeCO PPT upside down. Then we add each competence---freedom, creative intelligence, encultured habits and tastes, and instiinctive sociability--as a superstructure erected on the basis of the previous one: free will (the ability to make choices that are not necessarily intelligent or habitual or instinctive) intelligence (the ability to make choices that are not habitual or instinctive but nevertheless adaptive) enculturation (the ability to make choices that are not instinctive but conform to the choices that have proven successful in the now socialized environment) instinct (the ability to make choices that are responsive to the environment and which conform to the choices that have proven successful in phylogenesis) Are theses objects? Of course, if we say so. And processes? Well, how else could they have come about? What they are not, however, is either "discrete" or "discreet": they are clearly linked to each other, and they are all linked, through the lower layer, to adaptations ot the environment. And there's the rub--where the rubber meets the road. The real question, for our teachers and for our children, is about what will happen to them now that these competences can no longer be redeemed in jobs. Will the anti-Faustian bargain of exchanging your youth for a stable middle-aged livelihood survive? David Kellogg On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > Haydi, you say "AN activity is not a thing ; it's a > process." I wonder then what is a thing which is not also a > process? (I interpret "thing" as meaning "something > discrete," otherwise your objection makes no sense.) The > point is that Hegel does not make this dichotomy - every > thing is also a process and vice versa. That a process is > also discreet is important because it is only thanks to its > discreteness that we can cognise the process and in fact > only thanks to its discreteness that a process can affect > anything else. To speak of processes which are not also > discrete is to speak in abstractions. > > On this point, when Hegel puts ideas above matter, it has to > be realised that for Hegel "ideas" are social practices - he > is simply place human practice at the centre of human life > and its comprehension, rather than the mechanical and > chemical processes of Nature. If you think that "ideas" are > simply chimera inside our heads, then, of course, Hegel's > idealism seems like madness. > > Yes, all the Marxists have blasted Hegel. As they must. > Otherwise they must end up advocates of Constitutional > Monarchy. But while Marx uses almost every mention he makes > of Hegel to criticise him, often in extreme terms, it can go > unnoticed the extent to which in practice Marx follows Hegel > in philosophy. Of course Marx is not equal to Hegel, but > simple formulae do not contribute to understanding the relation. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 15/10/2017 6:51 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > > Andy, > > > > Let me first apologize to David Kellog because in others' > > wandering and perplexity it was he who in his reading of > > Gramsci's prison letters came across this point and made > > you not only accept the inappropriateness of Hegel's > > headstand as Crowning every worldly affair deriving from > > the People's Heads "Idea" , "Absolute" but also > > intensifying this point with more examples and references > > from Engels' "utopian versus genuine socialism" on your > > part. Of course you've been helping us on many occasions > > and you're very welcome for this nothing to be denied. > > > > At this point we have no problem with translation. > > Leontiev meant it. > > > > Suppose that ANL does not know "individual" which is very > > ambiguous because in what then one should seek the > > embodiment of the "particular" and if one takes the very > > particular as individual , then everything gets mixed up . > > Then what about you who stick firmly on individual > > discrete detached activities as an objection to Sasha's > > sole ACTIVITY as theoretical understanding. > > > > As you well know even AN activity is not a thing ; it's a > > process. And you once distinguished between GENERAL WORK > > ACTIVITY and LABOUR ACTIVITY or VALORIZATION ACTIVITY > > which was quite right and timely though you recently gave > > differing definitions in no way harmonious to your > > previous definitions. But the main problem is blending > > clarity in expression with concrete in theory. No doubt > > you're a Fan of Hegel. I should repeat myself : Hegel is a > > hero of theoretical concepts. In theorizing , and for him > > to explicate the Essence of Phenomena , he begins with > > apparently concrete things as ABSTRACTS finally reaches > > CONCRETE UNIVERSALS as concepts. And here we again very > > surprisingly see you put your finger upon what you should > > have known in person is contrary to your own erudition. > > Turning Hegel down as believing in discrete abstracts. > > > > And now to his son's comment : What individual are you > > pursuing? Your Hegel sees phenomena in their relations. > > According to him and also according to ANL ACTIVITY as a > > unit of Life is Molar non-additive. He even does not see > > operations as single acts. It's a matter of the angle of > > vision not detachment and concreteness. If his son had > > talked of concreteness in moments of activity , then you > > were right in your objections and oppositions. You please > > give us your last definition of activity here (not in > > lengthy references) so that we can have a discerning > > option. > > So far to remove the problem we should accept operations > > are separately and independently carried out ; actions in > > their own are carried out ; activities are carried out > > arbitrarily. And these are done to the realization of man > > as the ensemble of social relations based on some > > infrastructure. > > > > Hegel's metaphor has been thrown back at him by Marx , > > Engels , Lenin , Vygotsky , Ilyenko , and many others. If > > you like to stand above all Giants of Marxism , it's > > something perfectly and absolutely Personal as you're > > speaking out loud! Then why give us so many references. > > > > Best > > > > Haydi > > > > P.S. Alfredo! Though you have my previous private response > > concerning the matters you pose I see myself accountable > > to rewrite them to the Public. Thanks! > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Andy Blunden > > *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > *Sent:* Sunday, 15 October 2017, 5:35:40 > > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity > > and communication > > > > Haydi, partly the problem with ANL's > > philosophy-as-we-know-it is simply a product of its > > translation into English. But partly it is also in his > > philosophy. As Victor Kaptelinin first pointed out (so far > > as I know), ANL knows the universal and the particular but > > he does not know the individual. And his son's comment that > > ANL did not conceive of Activity as being discrete proves > > this to be the case. Thus his concept of Activity is not a > > fully concrete concept. And this is not a product of > > translation. > > > > As David Kellogg has kindly pointed out to me, it was Hegel > > who actually first introduced this metaphor of people > > "walking (or standing) on their heads." Personally, I don't > > think it has ever helped anyone understand the defect of > > Hegel's philosophy to throw this metaphor back at him. As > > demonstrated in this issue (the concept of activity) it was > > Hegel who understood that a concept must have all three > > moments - universal, particular and individual. > > > > Andy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 15/10/2017 9:24 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > > > Dear Mike, > > > Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an > > activist for his concreteness and clarifications is > > crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot > > ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes , Parts , > > and Moments. He personally provided us with examples from > > Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they convert > > Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced with the > > same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most > > valuable contribution) does not begin with the individual > > case in isolation which phenomenologically speaking (in > > contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for > > appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not obtained > > because one instance is considered detached from all > > relations and its subservience to the service of the > > Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is particular in > > some feature/s. And these particulars are essential. With > > other particulars in other individuals they are related > > actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense , this whole > > could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life itself. > > Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is , > > with category and concept only therefore , following Marx > > and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again on his > > feet (not that the firmament to that time did put "idea" > > on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on their > > heads but to put them again headstand thinking and acting > > with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just > > with their brains. Then taking all options in translation > > even that of a Machine into consideration it does not seem > > to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of > > Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of > > activities thereafter. These activities are those arising > > from the properties of versatile objects in turn arising > > from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile > > needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think > > Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual > > activities as moments with the broadest idea of the > > Monistic Substantial Modes or States in Philosophical > > terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn integrate and > > are dissolved into Monism of Substance. > > > > > > Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche > > (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one > > Substance) is already there with the organism actively and > > spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own , > > positioning its due object and moving along its contours > > and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to itself > > , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and > > bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as > > novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with > > Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with a huge > > gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of > > consciousness , now apparently ascending to "wording" and > > "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration) further > > "communication" as something indispensable and necessary > > and inevitable to the realization of life affairs. > > > Best > > > Haydi > > > > > > > > > From: mike cole > > > > > To: Andy Blunden > >; "eXtended Mind, Culture, > > Activity" > > > > > Cc: Alexander Surmava > >; ivan-dgf > > >; Ivan > > Uemlianin >; > > Haydi Zulfei > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50 > > > Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > > activity and communication > > > > > > Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.Could someone post > > the Russian text next to the English so that it is > > possible to compare it with the translation? I spent > > several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of > > Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally defeated > > me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra rubles in > > my pocket. > > > Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us > > a "true" translation. > > > mike > > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden > > > wrote: > > > > > > The Progress Publishers English translation of "Activity and > > > Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of > > > Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: > > > > > > Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, > > > material life of the material subject. In the narrower > > > sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a unit of > > > life, mediated by mental reflection, by > > > an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the > > > subject in the objective world. > > > > > > In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The > > > Development of Mind" we have: > > > > > > Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an > > > organism?s activity; the different activities that realise > > > its diverse vital relations with the surrounding reality are > > > essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore > > > differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively > > > different] types of activity according to the difference in > > > their objects. > > > > > > By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses > > > "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has > > > been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for > > > English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean simply > > > "category." The second does the same, but in addition makes > > > it evident that the plural does not refer to different > > > activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the > > > possibility of forming a true concept of activity > > altogether. > > > > > > With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is > > > simply that "such an initial *category* can only be > > > object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing > > > that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, > > > even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. > > > > > > Andy > > > ------------------------------ > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > Andy Blunden > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics. > > org/ablunden/index.htm > > > On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: > > >> Dear Andy! > > >> I am glad that our communication was resumed after many > > >> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and files > > >> and found that the problem of "object oriented activity OR > > >> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before > > >> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is serious and > > >> it deserves to return to it today. > > >> Last year I was close to being silent forever. > > >> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed > > >> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the > > >> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my > > >> theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my > > >> descendants :-). > > >> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not > > >> understand your question. What means the distinction > > >> between singular and plural number in your remark? Could > > >> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the > > >> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my > > >> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, > > >> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of > > >> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my dissertation > > >> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's "Theory of > > >> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, > > >> having understood the theoretic meaning of your claims to > > >> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily > > >> understand the essence of your objections to me. > > >> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I > > >> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a > > >> particular empirical case of its manifestation. Therefore, > > >> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just like > > >> Matter, Nature, or Substance. > > >> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come across > > >> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its > > >> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the > > >> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old > > >> philosophers and that only the numerous individual "atomic > > >> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really > > >> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar > > >> positivism and empiricism. > > >> However, all of this may not apply to your position ... > > >> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. > > >> Best wishes > > >> Sasha > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden > > >> > ?????(?): > > >> > > >> > > >> I'll ask Sasha a question. > > >> > > >> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial > > >> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it > > stands, > > >> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be > > that you > > >> are translating it from a Russian statement that is > > correct. > > >> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in when I > > >> say "every activity has an object." But in your expression > > >> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and > > unless > > >> you are a religious person is not something which can > > have a > > >> specific object. All English translations of A N Leontyev > > >> make this mistake which has caused no end of confusion > > among > > >> English-speakers. > > >> > > >> Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," just as > > >> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." > > >> > > >> Andy > > >> > > >> ------------------------------ > > ------------------------------ > > >> Andy Blunden > > >> http://www.ethicalpolitics. > > org/ablunden/index.htm > > >> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > >>> Dear Sasha, all, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding > > >> response. I think you are right in your assertion that we > > >> are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of > > >> CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. However, one > > >> can see in the lack of response by other members?? that > > >> not everyone has the privilege of the time it requires to > > >> go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing > > >> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce and I > > >> hope it is/will be appreciated as such. > > >>> > > >>> If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I quote > > >> from your response: > > >>> > > >>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial category, > > >> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us > > >> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will > > >> choose the one of the two categories from which one can > > >> derive the entire diversity of human life, including > > >> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that > > >> such an initial category can only be object-oriented > > >> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the > > >> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from > > >> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such > > >> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or > > >> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" > > >>> > > >>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework > > >> according to which we are looking of the most original > > >> germ cell, the one from which all others can be > > >> developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I > > >> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree on > > that. > > >>> > > >>> But ??once we are back to the development of a concrete > > >> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact that, for > > >> any child to participate in human forms of object-oriented > > >> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented > > >> activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular > > >> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into those > > >> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category > > >> devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with > > >> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you describe, is > > >> this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, or is > > >> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? > > >>> > > >>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others answer > > >> (which I hope some do). > > >>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in > > >> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of teaching > > >> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this > > >> is only possible through *involvement* in collective > > >> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary > > >> over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is > > >> only possible in and through object-oriented activity). > > >> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional aspect of > > >> the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to > > >> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this > > >> object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all > > >> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually > > >> uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such > > >> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get > > >> collective activity without them? On this, and precisely > > >> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of Man", > > >> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in that > > >> case that communication is included in activity and is its > > >> essential component: without relation to another > > >> person(s), activity is impossible' (144). Although I not > > >> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I can't > > >> see how he can be wrong. > > >>> > > >>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of > > >> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the > > >> category of object-oriented activity, is most primary. Let > > >> me also note that ?there are other authors who have > > >> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you > > >> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on > > >> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom > > >> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of auto-affection' ( > > >> https://www.amazon.com/ Incarnation-Philosophy- > > Studies-Phenomenology- Existential/dp/0810131269 > > >> ) > > >>> > > >>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I wonder > > >> whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity > > >> and communication. Is not the distinction just an artefact > > >> of a partial understanding of what it means activity and > > >> what it means communicating. I still feel that > > >> communication, in the sense of addressivity that Mikhailov > > >> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for > > >> semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity > > >> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't > > >> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps > > >> naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication > > >> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in > > >> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I > > >> don't see how any practical activity can have any sense > > >> (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. > > >> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are > > >> talking about; one machines could perform on their own > > >> without consciousness. ? > > >>> > > >>> Best wishes, > > >>> > > >>> Alfredo > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> ______________________________ __ > > >>> From: Alexander Surmava > > > >> > > > >>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 > > >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > >> > edu>; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo > > >> Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole > > >>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication > > >>> > > >>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > > >>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, > > >> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before > > >> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica > > >> aside) :-) > > >>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is > > >> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, > > >> based on the general principles accepted in its framework > > >> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a > > >> common, unifying conception are usually considered the > > >> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. > > >> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions > > >> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the > > >> interpretation of these concepts. > > >>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle > > >> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible > > >> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is > > >> possible to consider both objective activity and > > >> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe > > >> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to > > >> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? > > >>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar > > >> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry > > >> and without answering them in the most general form, we > > >> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this > > >> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, > > >> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical > > >> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that > > >> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, > > >> based on which we can practically solve socially > > >> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently > > >> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the > > >> interesting only for us theoretical > > >> verbiage > multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ > > 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> > > >> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical > > >> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between > > >> Vygotsky and Leontiev. > > >>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too > > >> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and > > >> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central > > >> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > > >>> Agitprop > > >>> sticks > > >>> in my teeth too, > > >>> and I?d rather > > >>> compose > > >>> romances for you - > > >>> more profit in it > > >>> and more charm. > > >>> But I > > >>> subdued > > >>> myself, > > >>> setting my heel > > >>> on the throat > > >>> of my own song. > > >>> Vladimir Mayakovski > > >>> > > >>> ? ??? > > >>> ???????? > > >>> ? ????? ?????, > > >>> ? ??? ?? > > >>> ???????? > > >>> ??????? ?? ??? ? > > >>> ???????? ??? > > >>> ? ??????????. > > >>> ?? ? > > >>> ???? > > >>> ??????, > > >>> ????????? > > >>> ?? ????? > > >>> ??????????? ?????. > > >>> ???????? ?????????? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced > > >> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to > > >> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to > > >> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally > > >> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract > > >> to the concrete. > > >>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions > > >> about how to understand the principle of interaction as > > >> such and about the relationship of object oriented > > >> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer > > >> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed > > >> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in > > >> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF > > >> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian > > >> ???????? ?????? ???????????? > > >> ???????????? > academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > > OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > > %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > > D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > > %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > > B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > > BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > > D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% > > D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . > > >> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the > > >> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is > > >> available in English. It was even sent in published in > > >> English international journal... but for some strange > > >> reason was not published then or later. > > >>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, > > >> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text > > >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > > CONSCIOUSNESS. > > >>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to > > >> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction > > >> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case > > >> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two > > >> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach > > >> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my > > >> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should > > >> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious > > >> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the > > >> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the > > >> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object > > >> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing > > >> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic > > >> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? > > >> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the > > >> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" > > >> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, > > >> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism > > >> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense > > >> that one can not in principle separate out its active and > > >> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in > > >> the process of positing of an object one side is active, > > >> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There > > >> are many interesting differences between them, but let us > > >> return to this somehow later. > > >>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation > > >> work of 1988: > > >>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation > > >> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two > > >> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken > > >> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is > > >> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It > > >> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to > > >> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) > > >> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? > > >> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant > > >> leaves (with his telescope). > > >>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation > > >> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously > > >> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital > > activity. > > >>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, > > >> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not > > >> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. > > >> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not > > >> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with > > >> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. > > >> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not > > >> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be > > >> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism > > >> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing > > >> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into > > >> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it > > >> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of > > >> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive > > relation.? > > >>> Now about the object oriented activity and > > >> communication, and it does not matter whether in the > > >> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's > > >> "addressing" to another person. > > >>> Which of these two categories should be considered > > >> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to > > >> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness > > >> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and > > >> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology > > >> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and > > Ilyenkov. > > >>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want > > >> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the > > >> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the > > >> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers > > >> believed that the method of ascent, the method of > > >> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to > > >> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical > > >> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one > > >> thing - either activity or communication. And at first > > >> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a > > >> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course > > >> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic > > >> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human > > >> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single > > >> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the > > >> social relations.. " > > >>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's > > >> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely > > >> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to > > >> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology > > >> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then > > >> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely > > >> difficult situation, because the classics left us with > > >> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it > > >> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, > > >> and with which in the second, it would still have to be > > >> solved by ourselves. > > >>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this > > >> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A > > >> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was AN > > >> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly > > >> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented > > >> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second > > >> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of > > >> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was inclined to > > >> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, > > >> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" > > >> were for communication. > > >>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our > > >> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal > > >> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our > > >> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a > > >> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the > > >> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something > > >> rather indecent. > > >>> The end of the discussion between supporters of > > >> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also > > >> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, > > >> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing > > >> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was > > >> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was > > >> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of > > >> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of > > >> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a > > >> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader > > >> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in > > >> the ideological department of the Central Committee of > > >> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific > > >> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in > > >> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the > > >> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters > > >> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's > > >> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE > > >> could not reverse the situation too. > > >>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to > > >> "communication" and "activity." > > >>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, > > >> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us > > >> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will > > >> choose the one of the two categories from which one can > > >> derive the entire diversity of human life, including > > >> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that > > >> such an initial category can only be object-oriented > > >> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the > > >> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from > > >> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such > > >> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or > > >> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. > > >>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact > > >> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive > > >> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and > > >> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first > > >> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, > > >> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic > > >> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course > > >> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. > > >> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external > > >> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, > > >> together and practically producing their own lives, > > >> assumes a specifically human character, being a > > >> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. > > >>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" > > >> communication and the affective side of life are taken not > > >> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of > > >> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as > > >> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s > > >> REFLEXIVE side. > > >>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my > > >> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a > > >> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the > > >> relation of objective activity and "communication". In the > > >> same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, > > >> the active relation of the subject to the object and to > > >> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, > > >> indeed, any other, psychology. > > >>> ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????, > > >> ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, > > >> ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, > > >> ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? > > >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > > CONSCIOUSNESS > > >> ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. > > >>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable > > >> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, > > >> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the > > >> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large > > >> English text > > >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > > CONSCIOUSNESS > > >> and read it to the end :-). > > >>> ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN > > >> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? > > >> ???????????? > academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > > OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > > %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > > D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > > %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > > B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > > BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > > D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> > > >>> ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? > > >> ??????????? ???????? > > >> https://www.avramus.com/app/ > > download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% > > BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% > > D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% > > D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% > > D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% > > BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 > > >> . > > >>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > > >>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, > > >> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before > > >> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica > > >> aside) :-) > > >>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is > > >> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, > > >> based on the general principles accepted in its framework > > >> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a > > >> common, unifying conception are usually considered the > > >> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. > > >> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions > > >> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the > > >> interpretation of these concepts. > > >>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle > > >> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible > > >> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is > > >> possible to consider both objective activity and > > >> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe > > >> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to > > >> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? > > >>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar > > >> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry > > >> and without answering them in the most general form, we > > >> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this > > >> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, > > >> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical > > >> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that > > >> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, > > >> based on which we can practically solve socially > > >> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently > > >> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the > > >> interesting only for us theoretical > > >> verbiage > multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ > > 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> > > >> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical > > >> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between > > >> Vygotsky and Leontiev. > > >>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too > > >> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and > > >> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central > > >> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > > >>> Agitprop > > >>> sticks > > >>> in my teeth too, > > >>> and I?d rather > > >>> compose > > >>> romances for you - > > >>> more profit in it > > >>> and more charm. > > >>> But I > > >>> subdued > > >>> myself, > > >>> setting my heel > > >>> on the throat > > >>> of my own song. > > >>> Vladimir Mayakovski > > >>> > > >>> ? ??? > > >>> ???????? > > >>> ? ????? ?????, > > >>> ? ??? ?? > > >>> ???????? > > >>> ??????? ?? ??? ? > > >>> ???????? ??? > > >>> ? ??????????. > > >>> ?? ? > > >>> ???? > > >>> ??????, > > >>> ????????? > > >>> ?? ????? > > >>> ??????????? ?????. > > >>> ???????? ?????????? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced > > >> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to > > >> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to > > >> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally > > >> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract > > >> to the concrete. > > >>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions > > >> about how to understand the principle of interaction as > > >> such and about the relationship of object oriented > > >> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer > > >> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed > > >> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in > > >> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF > > >> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian > > >> ???????? ?????? ???????????? > > >> ???????????? > academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > > OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > > %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > > D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > > %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > > B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > > BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > > D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% > > D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . > > >> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the > > >> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is > > >> available in English. It was even sent in published in > > >> English international journal... but for some strange > > >> reason was not published then or later. > > >>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, > > >> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text > > >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > > CONSCIOUSNESS. > > >>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to > > >> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction > > >> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case > > >> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two > > >> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach > > >> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my > > >> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should > > >> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious > > >> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the > > >> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the > > >> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object > > >> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing > > >> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic > > >> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? > > >> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the > > >> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" > > >> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, > > >> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism > > >> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense > > >> that one can not in principle separate out its active and > > >> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in > > >> the process of positing of an object one side is active, > > >> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There > > >> are many interesting differences between them, but let us > > >> return to this somehow later. > > >>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation > > >> work of 1988: > > >>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation > > >> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two > > >> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken > > >> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is > > >> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It > > >> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to > > >> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) > > >> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? > > >> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant > > >> leaves (with his telescope). > > >>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation > > >> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously > > >> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital > > activity. > > >>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, > > >> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not > > >> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. > > >> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not > > >> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with > > >> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. > > >> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not > > >> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be > > >> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism > > >> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing > > >> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into > > >> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it > > >> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of > > >> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive > > relation.? > > >>> Now about the object oriented activity and > > >> communication, and it does not matter whether in the > > >> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's > > >> "addressing" to another person. > > >>> Which of these two categories should be considered > > >> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to > > >> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness > > >> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and > > >> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology > > >> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and > > Ilyenkov. > > >>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want > > >> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the > > >> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the > > >> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers > > >> believed that the method of ascent, the method of > > >> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to > > >> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical > > >> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one > > >> thing - either activity or communication. And at first > > >> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a > > >> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course > > >> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic > > >> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human > > >> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single > > >> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the > > >> social relations.. " > > >>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's > > >> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely > > >> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to > > >> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology > > >> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then > > >> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely > > >> difficult situation, because the classics left us with > > >> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it > > >> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, > > >> and with which in the second, it would still have to be > > >> solved by ourselves. > > >>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this > > >> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A > > >> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was > > >> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly > > >> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented > > >> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second > > >> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas > > >> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was > > >> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other > > >> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas > > >> "Leningraders" were for "communication". > > >>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our > > >> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a literal > > >> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our > > >> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a > > >> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the > > >> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something > > >> rather indecent. > > >>> The end of the discussion between supporters of > > >> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also > > >> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, > > >> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing > > >> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was > > >> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was > > >> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of > > >> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of > > >> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a > > >> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader > > >> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in > > >> the ideological department of the Central Committee of > > >> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific > > >> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in > > >> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the > > >> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters > > >> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's > > >> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE > > >> could not reverse the situation too. > > >>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to > > >> "communication" and "activity." > > >>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, > > >> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us > > >> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will > > >> choose the one of the two categories from which one can > > >> derive the entire diversity of human life, including > > >> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that > > >> such an initial category can only be object-oriented > > >> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the > > >> object oriented activity, which is an attribute property > > >> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, > > >> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we > > >> will never get life or object oriented activity even with > > >> the greatest diligence. > > >>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact > > >> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive > > >> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and > > >> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first > > >> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, > > >> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic > > >> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course > > >> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. > > >>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external > > >> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, > > >> together and practically producing their own lives, > > >> assumes a specifically human character, being a > > >> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. > > >>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" > > >> communication and the affective side of life are taken not > > >> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of > > >> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as > > >> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s > > >> REFLEXIVE side. > > >>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my diploma > > >> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist > > >> theoretical solution to the question of the relation of > > >> objective activity and "communication". In the same time, > > >> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active > > >> relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is > > >> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, > > >> any other, psychology. > > >>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable > > >> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, > > >> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the > > >> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large > > >> English text > > >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > > CONSCIOUSNESS > > >> and read it to the end :-). > > >>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN > > >> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? > > >> ???????????? > academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > > OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > > %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > > D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > > %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > > B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > > BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > > D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> > > >>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short > > >> English one > > >> https://www.avramus.com/app/ > > download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% > > BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% > > D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% > > D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% > > D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% > > BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. > > >>> Sasha > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Sun Oct 15 21:56:10 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 21:56:10 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Two Learning Science positions at Northwestern In-Reply-To: <1508128737855.57210@northwestern.edu> References: <1508128737855.57210@northwestern.edu> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David H Uttal Date: Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 9:38 PM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Two Learning Science positions at Northwestern To: "cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org" Please see attached. Thanks. ------------------------------ David H. Uttal, Ph.D. Professor Associate Editor,* Psychological Bulletin* Past President, Cognitive Development Society School of Education and Social Policy and Department of Psychology Northwestern University 2029 Sheridan Road Evanston, IL 60208-2710 847-467-1925 duttal@northwestern.edu _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Science and Math in Schools Ad - NU SESP.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 116527 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171015/aec3b13d/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Ecological Perspectives Ad - NU SESP.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 115037 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171015/aec3b13d/attachment-0001.pdf From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Mon Oct 16 00:45:47 2017 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 07:45:47 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> Message-ID: <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> Thank you David for your explanation! Though for me it needs more than one read. The point was whether use of activity and activities in Leontiev is a contradiction. Whoever L was and whatever he believed in , he was not so negligent to the point of posing activity first and immediately after that recounting 'activities'. Translation ruled out a committed error. Then such a blundering display must have a justification rather than a misunderstanding in comprehension. In one sense all things are related. The more so with the Monistic View. We have so many corporate and incorporate things , two of them so problematic communication and practical activity since Descartes and we are determined to avoid Dualism and refer and return all phenomena to that same thing , the one substance. In the actuality of the world , there's nothing discrete , that is , absolutely unrelated. Is that pretext for us not to see this unbounded versatility and hues and dues as distinct coloring? Maybe one of the ways was for man to let Nature go unrestrained?? But man also did not come of its own will. The sole way destined or open to Man was of its Nature to engage with the surrounding. To deal with it sensually and subjectively/agently. Then Man in one time interpreted all phenomena as they appeared to him. But he grew up further than his infantile period. He learnt to delve into matters , go deeper and deeper. With one spectacle (plane) he observed how that single substance let its attributes multiply themselves into different shapes and colors and Modes. With another plane of the one spectacle observed the variation of the Modes themselves. I mean Ontology and Epistemology not yet separate from each other as I used a pair of planes for that matter. Then we usually don't use a nail-clipper for alterations and manipulations in Genes. Or devices for Genes for our feeding and nutrition. It is then within these constraints that corporate and incorporate phenomena differ. Singles and plurals differ. Discrete and the indivisible differ. Parts and Moments differ. Wholes and mere entities differ. A process and a product resulting from that process differ. No justification to interchange them because of the use of A in front of them. I wonder if this is true for others too. For me it's difficult to accept to say "this capital that capital" "those 8 capitals united" "capitals of the world dissolved into unanimity". If I'm correct in this , it's , I think , because Capital is a Whole , coming out of a long process of functions and disfunctions , moments of circulations and transient stagnation , booms and boosts and drawbacks and failures. The moment of its conception in the exchange of commodities up to the discovery of the private appropriation of the surplus value to the point of harnessing every means to penetrate each tight corner of the big World. Best Haydi? From: David Kellogg To: Andy Blunden ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Monday, 16 October 2017, 2:21:12 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Of course, neither an object nor a process is discrete (or even, as Andy says, "discreet"). Who can tell me where a mountain river ends and the alluvial plain begins? Certainly not Cezanne or the phenomenologists who so loved him. Yet a mountain is most assuredly an object, just as surely as climbing the mountain to ascertain its degree of montagnitude is a process. This last week I've been struggling through the "Curriculum Reforms" wrought by three right wing governments in Norway, Finland, and New Zealand. Like Catalonia, these are all countries where unpopular coalitions of right parties are replacing a much more popular but obviously unsuccessful social democratic coalition of left parties. In Norway and in Finland, the coalition actually includes the far right, neo-fascist, anti-immigrant parties, and in New Zealand it includes the ACT, that is, an "association of consumers and taxpayers" whose main interest is cutting education budgets, starting by making teachers and students fight each other for scarce resources in the form of "block grants". Now, all of these governments are more or less bound by something called DeSeCo, which is short for Describe and Select Competences. This is because right-wing ideology sees education not as a public good but as a commodity, to be judged by tangible results and priced accordingly. This presents a real theoretical problem for right-wingers, because they ALSO see that "flexible labor markets" and "entrepreneurial spirit" means that there isn't any way of deciding on what skills or even what knowledge the "economy of the future" will demand. We can see this in the emphasis on "competence". Competence is not a thing or a process, and it is neither discrete nor discreet. Of course, if you are a linguist, competence is something Chomsky thought of in the sixties, an abstract form of knowledge in a hypothetical native speaker-hearer in an imaginary homogenous speech community. It is "discrete" in the sense of being nowhere and nowhen connectible to performance in any way. It is therefore "discreet" in the sense of being untestable--as soon as you test it, you have a form of performance, not competence. It's like standing in front of a classroom with a picture of a guy swimming and trying to teach the expression "i can swim". What you have in the picture is not "I can swim"; it's manifestly "he is swimming". But in DeSeCo, you get these lists of competences, which are set up as if they were discrete so you can list them on a Powerpoint slide and sell them to ministries of education. And the real selling point is that, on the one hand, because they are all "meta-skills" and "meta-knowledges", they don't have any practical outcome or real commitment to a job and a livelihood. And on the other, they sound terribly powerful when you phrase them as "learning to learn" or "transversal competence" or "meta-cognitive skills" or something like that. Jobs, in other words, are discretionary. After centuries of promising jobs and livelhood in return for school and boredom, the Western economies have decided that sticks are cheaper than carrots, and the thing to do is simply to rule people who don't have educational certificates out of the job market rather than try to provide actual know-how and factual know-that. Here are my four favorites (i.e. the four that we stress in our own curricular reform here in South Korea): interpersonal competence (sociability, the ability to 'be alone with others' as Hughlings Jackson put it) cultural competence (enculturation, the ability to understand traditions, mores, and norms) creative competence (intelligence, innovation, yadda yadda) individual competence (the ability to dress yourself, feed yourself, and show up for an interview where you will not be offered a job) Vygotsky, as usual, has a better idea--it's a mountain. We just turn the DeSeCO PPT upside down. Then we add each competence---freedom, creative intelligence, encultured habits and tastes, and instiinctive sociability--as a superstructure? erected on the basis of the previous one: free will (the ability to make choices that are not necessarily intelligent or habitual or instinctive) intelligence (the ability to make choices that are not habitual or instinctive but nevertheless adaptive) enculturation (the ability to make choices that are not instinctive but conform to the choices that have proven successful in the now socialized environment) instinct (the ability to make choices that are? responsive to the environment and which conform to the choices that have proven successful in phylogenesis) Are theses objects? Of course, if we say so. And processes? Well, how else could they have come about? What they are not, however, is either "discrete" or "discreet": they are clearly linked to each other, and they are all linked, through the lower layer, to adaptations ot the environment. And there's the rub--where the rubber meets the road. The real question, for our teachers and for our children, is about what will happen to them now that these competences can no longer be redeemed in jobs. Will the anti-Faustian bargain of exchanging your youth for a stable middle-aged livelihood survive? David Kellogg On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > Haydi, you say "AN activity is not a thing ; it's a > process." I wonder then what is a thing which is not also a > process? (I interpret "thing" as meaning "something > discrete," otherwise your objection makes no sense.) The > point is that Hegel does not make this dichotomy - every > thing is also a process and vice versa. That a process is > also discreet is important because it is only thanks to its > discreteness that we can cognise the process and in fact > only thanks to its discreteness that a process can affect > anything else. To speak of processes which are not also > discrete is to speak in abstractions. > > On this point, when Hegel puts ideas above matter, it has to > be realised that for Hegel "ideas" are social practices - he > is simply place human practice at the centre of human life > and its comprehension, rather than the mechanical and > chemical processes of Nature. If you think that "ideas" are > simply chimera inside our heads, then, of course, Hegel's > idealism seems like madness. > > Yes, all the Marxists have blasted Hegel. As they must. > Otherwise they must end up advocates of Constitutional > Monarchy. But while Marx uses almost every mention he makes > of Hegel to criticise him, often in extreme terms, it can go > unnoticed the extent to which in practice Marx follows Hegel > in philosophy. Of course Marx is not equal to Hegel, but > simple formulae do not contribute to understanding the relation. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 15/10/2017 6:51 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > > Andy, > > > > Let me first apologize to David Kellog because in others' > > wandering and perplexity it was he who in his reading of > > Gramsci's prison letters came across this point and made > > you not only accept the inappropriateness of Hegel's > > headstand as Crowning every worldly affair deriving from > > the People's Heads "Idea" , "Absolute" but also > > intensifying this point with more examples and references > > from Engels' "utopian versus genuine socialism" on your > > part. Of course you've been helping us on many occasions > > and? you're very welcome for this nothing to be denied. > > > > At this point we have no problem with translation. > > Leontiev meant it. > > > > Suppose that ANL does not know "individual" which is very > > ambiguous because in what then one should seek the > > embodiment of the "particular" and if one takes the very > > particular as individual , then everything gets mixed up . > > Then what about you who stick firmly on individual > > discrete detached activities as an objection to Sasha's > > sole ACTIVITY as theoretical understanding. > > > > As you well know even AN activity is not a thing ; it's a > > process. And you once distinguished between GENERAL WORK > > ACTIVITY and LABOUR ACTIVITY or VALORIZATION ACTIVITY > > which was quite right and timely though you recently gave > > differing definitions in no way harmonious to your > > previous definitions. But the main problem is blending > > clarity in expression with concrete in theory. No doubt > > you're a Fan of Hegel. I should repeat myself : Hegel is a > > hero of theoretical concepts. In theorizing , and for him > > to explicate the Essence of Phenomena , he begins with > > apparently concrete things as ABSTRACTS finally reaches > > CONCRETE UNIVERSALS as concepts. And here we again very > > surprisingly see you put your finger upon what you should > > have known in person is contrary to your own erudition. > > Turning Hegel down as believing in discrete abstracts. > > > > And now to his son's comment : What individual are you > > pursuing? Your Hegel sees phenomena in their relations. > > According to him and also according to ANL ACTIVITY as a > > unit of Life is Molar non-additive. He even does not see > > operations as single acts. It's a matter of the angle of > > vision not detachment and concreteness. If his son had > > talked of concreteness in moments of activity , then you > > were right in your objections and oppositions. You please > > give us your last definition of activity here (not in > > lengthy references) so that we can have a discerning > > option. > > So far to remove the problem we should accept operations > > are separately and independently carried out ; actions in > > their own are carried out ; activities are carried out > > arbitrarily. And these are done to the realization of man > > as the ensemble of social relations based on some > > infrastructure. > > > > Hegel's metaphor has been thrown back at him by Marx , > > Engels , Lenin , Vygotsky , Ilyenko , and many others. If > > you like to stand above all Giants of Marxism , it's > > something perfectly and absolutely Personal as you're > > speaking out loud! Then why give us so many references. > > > > Best > > > > Haydi > > > > P.S. Alfredo! Though you have my previous private response > > concerning the matters you pose I see myself accountable > > to rewrite them to the Public. Thanks! > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Andy Blunden > > *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > *Sent:* Sunday, 15 October 2017, 5:35:40 > > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity > > and communication > > > > Haydi, partly the problem with ANL's > > philosophy-as-we-know-it is simply a product of its > > translation into English. But partly it is also in his > > philosophy. As Victor Kaptelinin first pointed out (so far > > as I know), ANL knows the universal and the particular but > > he does not know the individual. And his son's comment that > > ANL did not conceive of Activity as being discrete proves > > this to be the case. Thus his concept of Activity is not a > > fully concrete concept. And this is not a product of > > translation. > > > > As David Kellogg has kindly pointed out to me, it was Hegel > > who actually first introduced this metaphor of people > > "walking (or standing) on their heads." Personally, I don't > > think it has ever helped anyone understand the defect of > > Hegel's philosophy to throw this metaphor back at him. As > > demonstrated in this issue (the concept of activity) it was > > Hegel who understood that a concept must have all three > > moments - universal, particular and individual. > > > > Andy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 15/10/2017 9:24 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > > > Dear Mike, > > > Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an > > activist for his concreteness and clarifications is > > crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot > > ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes , Parts , > > and Moments. He personally provided us with examples from > > Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they convert > > Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced with the > > same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most > > valuable contribution) does not begin with the individual > > case in isolation which phenomenologically? speaking (in > > contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for > > appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not obtained > > because one instance is considered detached from all > > relations and its subservience to the service of the > > Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is particular in > > some feature/s. And these particulars are essential. With > > other particulars in other individuals they are related > > actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense , this whole > > could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life itself. > > Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is , > > with category and concept only therefore , following Marx > > and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again on his > > feet (not that the firmament to that time did put "idea" > > on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on their > > heads but to put them again headstand thinking and acting > > with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just > > with their brains. Then taking all options in translation > > even that of a Machine into consideration it does not seem > > to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of > > Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of > > activities thereafter. These activities are those arising > > from the properties of versatile objects in turn arising > > from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile > > needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think > > Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual > > activities as moments with the broadest idea of the > > Monistic Substantial Modes or States in Philosophical > > terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn integrate and > > are dissolved into Monism of Substance. > > > > > > Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche > > (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one > > Substance) is already there with the organism actively and > > spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own , > > positioning its due object and moving along its contours > > and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to itself > > , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and > > bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as > > novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with > > Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with a huge > > gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of > > consciousness , now apparently ascending to "wording" and > > "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration) further > > "communication" as something indispensable and necessary > > and inevitable to the realization of life affairs. > > > Best > > > Haydi > > > > > > > > >? ? ? From: mike cole > > > > >? To: Andy Blunden > >; "eXtended Mind, Culture, > > Activity" > > > > > Cc: Alexander Surmava > >; ivan-dgf > > >; Ivan > > Uemlianin >; > > Haydi Zulfei > > > > >? Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50 > > >? Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > > activity and communication > > > > > > Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.Could someone post > > the Russian text next to the English so that it is > > possible to compare it with the translation? I spent > > several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of > > Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally defeated > > me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra rubles in > > my pocket. > > > Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us > > a "true" translation. > > > mike > > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden > > > wrote: > > > > > > The Progress Publishers English translation of "Activity and > > > Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of > > > Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: > > > > > >? ? Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, > > >? ? material life of the material subject. In the narrower > > >? ? sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a unit of > > >? ? life, mediated by mental reflection, by > > >? ? an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the > > >? ? subject in the objective world. > > > > > > In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The > > > Development of Mind" we have: > > > > > > Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an > > > organism?s activity; the different activities that realise > > > its diverse vital relations with the surrounding reality are > > > essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore > > > differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively > > > different] types of activity according to the difference in > > > their objects. > > > > > > By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses > > > "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has > > > been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for > > > English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean simply > > > "category." The second does the same, but in addition makes > > > it evident that the plural does not refer to different > > > activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the > > > possibility of forming a true concept of activity > > altogether. > > > > > > With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is > > > simply that "such an initial *category* can only be > > > object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing > > > that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, > > > even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. > > > > > > Andy > > > ------------------------------ > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > Andy Blunden > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics. > > org/ablunden/index.htm > > > On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: > > >> Dear Andy! > > >> I am glad that our communication was resumed after many > > >> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and files > > >> and found that the problem of "object oriented activity OR > > >> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before > > >> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is serious and > > >> it deserves to return to it today. > > >> Last year I was close to being silent forever. > > >> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed > > >> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the > > >> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my > > >> theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my > > >> descendants :-). > > >> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not > > >> understand your question. What means the distinction > > >> between singular and plural number in your remark? Could > > >> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the > > >> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my > > >> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, > > >> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of > > >> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my dissertation > > >> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's "Theory of > > >> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, > > >> having understood the theoretic meaning of your claims to > > >> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily > > >> understand the essence of your objections to me. > > >> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I > > >> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a > > >> particular empirical case of its manifestation. Therefore, > > >> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just like > > >> Matter, Nature, or Substance. > > >> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come across > > >> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its > > >> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the > > >> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old > > >> philosophers and that only the numerous individual "atomic > > >> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really > > >> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar > > >> positivism and empiricism. > > >> However, all of this may not apply to your position ... > > >> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. > > >> Best wishes > > >> Sasha > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden > > >> > ?????(?): > > >> > > >> > > >> I'll ask Sasha a question. > > >> > > >> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial > > >> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it > > stands, > > >> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be > > that you > > >> are translating it from a Russian statement that is > > correct. > > >> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in when I > > >> say "every activity has an object."? But in your expression > > >> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and > > unless > > >> you are a religious person is not something which can > > have a > > >> specific object. All English translations of A N Leontyev > > >> make this mistake which has caused no end of confusion > > among > > >> English-speakers. > > >> > > >> Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," just as > > >> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." > > >> > > >> Andy > > >> > > >> ------------------------------ > > ------------------------------ > > >> Andy Blunden > > >> http://www.ethicalpolitics. > > org/ablunden/index.htm > > >> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > >>> Dear Sasha, all, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding > > >> response. I think you are right in your assertion that we > > >> are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of > > >> CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. However, one > > >> can see in the lack of response by other members?? that > > >> not everyone has the privilege of the time it requires to > > >> go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing > > >> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce and I > > >> hope it is/will be appreciated as such. > > >>> > > >>> If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I quote > > >> from your response: > > >>> > > >>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial category, > > >> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us > > >> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will > > >> choose the one of the two categories from which one can > > >> derive the entire diversity of human life, including > > >> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that > > >> such an initial category can only be object-oriented > > >> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the > > >> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from > > >> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such > > >> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or > > >> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" > > >>> > > >>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework > > >> according to which we are looking of the most original > > >> germ cell, the one from which all others can be > > >> developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I > > >> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree on > > that. > > >>> > > >>> But ??once we are back to the development of a concrete > > >> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact that, for > > >> any child to participate in human forms of object-oriented > > >> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented > > >> activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular > > >> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into those > > >> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category > > >> devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with > > >> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you describe, is > > >> this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, or is > > >> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? > > >>> > > >>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others answer > > >> (which I hope some do). > > >>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in > > >> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of teaching > > >> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this > > >> is only possible through *involvement* in collective > > >> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary > > >> over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is > > >> only possible in and through object-oriented activity). > > >> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional aspect of > > >> the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to > > >> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this > > >> object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all > > >> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually > > >> uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such > > >> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get > > >> collective activity without them? On this, and precisely > > >> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of Man", > > >> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in that > > >> case that communication is included in activity and is its > > >> essential component: without relation to another > > >> person(s), activity is impossible'? (144). Although I not > > >> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I can't > > >> see how he can be wrong. > > >>> > > >>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of > > >> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the > > >> category of object-oriented activity, is most primary. Let > > >> me also note that ?there are other authors who have > > >> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you > > >> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on > > >> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom > > >> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of auto-affection' ( > > >> https://www.amazon.com/ Incarnation-Philosophy- > > Studies-Phenomenology- Existential/dp/0810131269 > > >> ) > > >>> > > >>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I wonder > > >> whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity > > >> and communication. Is not the distinction just an artefact > > >> of a partial understanding of what it means activity and > > >> what it means communicating. I still feel that > > >> communication, in the sense of addressivity that Mikhailov > > >> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for > > >> semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity > > >> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't > > >> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps > > >> naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication > > >> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in > > >> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I > > >> don't see how any practical activity can have any sense > > >> (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. > > >> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are > > >> talking about; one machines could perform on their own > > >> without consciousness. ? > > >>> > > >>> Best wishes, > > >>> > > >>> Alfredo > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> ______________________________ __ > > >>> From: Alexander Surmava > > > >> > > > >>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 > > >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > >> > edu>; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo > > >> Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole > > >>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication > > >>> > > >>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > > >>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, > > >> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before > > >> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica > > >> aside) :-) > > >>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is > > >> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, > > >> based on the general principles accepted in its framework > > >> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a > > >> common, unifying conception are usually considered the > > >> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. > > >> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions > > >> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the > > >> interpretation of these concepts. > > >>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle > > >> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible > > >> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is > > >> possible to consider both objective activity and > > >> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe > > >> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to > > >> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? > > >>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar > > >> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry > > >> and without answering them in the most general form, we > > >> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this > > >> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, > > >> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical > > >> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that > > >> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, > > >> based on which we can practically solve socially > > >> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently > > >> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the > > >> interesting only for us theoretical > > >> verbiage > multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ > > 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> > > >> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical > > >> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between > > >> Vygotsky and Leontiev. > > >>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too > > >> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and > > >> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central > > >> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > > >>> Agitprop > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? sticks > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? in my teeth too, > > >>> and I?d rather > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? compose > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? romances for you - > > >>> more profit in it > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? and more charm. > > >>> But I > > >>>? ? ? ? subdued > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? myself, > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? setting my heel > > >>> on the throat > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of my own song. > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Vladimir Mayakovski > > >>> > > >>> ? ??? > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????? ?????, > > >>> ? ??? ?? > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????? ?? ??? ? > > >>> ???????? ??? > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????. > > >>> ?? ? > > >>>? ? ? ? ???? > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????, > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????????? > > >>> ?? ????? > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????? ?????. > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? ?????????? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced > > >> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to > > >> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to > > >> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally > > >> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract > > >> to the concrete. > > >>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions > > >> about how to understand the principle of interaction as > > >> such and about the relationship of object oriented > > >> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer > > >> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed > > >> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in > > >> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF > > >> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian > > >> ???????? ?????? ???????????? > > >> ???????????? > academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > > OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > > %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > > D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > > %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > > B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > > BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > > D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% > > D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . > > >> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the > > >> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is > > >> available in English. It was even sent in published in > > >> English international journal... but for some strange > > >> reason was not published then or later. > > >>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, > > >> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text > > >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > > CONSCIOUSNESS. > > >>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to > > >> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction > > >> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case > > >> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two > > >> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach > > >> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my > > >> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should > > >> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious > > >> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the > > >> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the > > >> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object > > >> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing > > >> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic > > >> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? > > >> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the > > >> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" > > >> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, > > >> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism > > >> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense > > >> that one can not in principle separate out its active and > > >> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in > > >> the process of positing of an object one side is active, > > >> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There > > >> are many interesting differences between them, but let us > > >> return to this somehow later. > > >>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation > > >> work of 1988: > > >>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation > > >> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two > > >> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken > > >> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is > > >> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It > > >> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to > > >> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) > > >> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? > > >> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant > > >> leaves (with his telescope). > > >>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation > > >> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously > > >> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital > > activity. > > >>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, > > >> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not > > >> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. > > >> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not > > >> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with > > >> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. > > >> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not > > >> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be > > >> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism > > >> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing > > >> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into > > >> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it > > >> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of > > >> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive > > relation.? > > >>> Now about the object oriented activity and > > >> communication, and it does not matter whether in the > > >> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's > > >> "addressing" to another person. > > >>> Which of these two categories should be considered > > >> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to > > >> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness > > >> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and > > >> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology > > >> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and > > Ilyenkov. > > >>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want > > >> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the > > >> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the > > >> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers > > >> believed that the method of ascent, the method of > > >> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to > > >> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical > > >> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one > > >> thing - either activity or communication. And at first > > >> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a > > >> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course > > >> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic > > >> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human > > >> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single > > >> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the > > >> social relations.. " > > >>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's > > >> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely > > >> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to > > >> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology > > >> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then > > >> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely > > >> difficult situation, because the classics left us with > > >> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it > > >> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, > > >> and with which in the second, it would still have to be > > >> solved by ourselves. > > >>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this > > >> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A > > >> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was AN > > >> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly > > >> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented > > >> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second > > >> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of > > >> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was inclined to > > >> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, > > >> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" > > >> were for communication. > > >>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our > > >> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal > > >> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our > > >> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a > > >> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the > > >> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something > > >> rather indecent. > > >>> The end of the discussion between supporters of > > >> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also > > >> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, > > >> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing > > >> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was > > >> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was > > >> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of > > >> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of > > >> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a > > >> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader > > >> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in > > >> the ideological department of the Central Committee of > > >> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific > > >> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in > > >> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the > > >> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed? supporters > > >> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's > > >> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE > > >> could not reverse the situation too. > > >>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to > > >> "communication" and "activity." > > >>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, > > >> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us > > >> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will > > >> choose the one of the two categories from which one can > > >> derive the entire diversity of human life, including > > >> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that > > >> such an initial category can only be object-oriented > > >> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the > > >> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from > > >> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such > > >> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or > > >> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. > > >>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact > > >> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive > > >> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and > > >> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first > > >> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, > > >> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic > > >> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course > > >> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. > > >> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external > > >> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, > > >> together and practically producing their own lives, > > >> assumes a specifically human character, being a > > >> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. > > >>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" > > >> communication and the affective side of life are taken not > > >> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of > > >> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as > > >> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s > > >> REFLEXIVE side. > > >>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my > > >> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a > > >> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the > > >> relation of objective activity and "communication". In the > > >> same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, > > >> the active relation of the subject to the object and to > > >> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, > > >> indeed, any other, psychology. > > >>> ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????, > > >> ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, > > >> ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, > > >> ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? > > >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > > CONSCIOUSNESS > > >> ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. > > >>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable > > >> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, > > >> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the > > >> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large > > >> English text > > >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > > CONSCIOUSNESS > > >> and read it to the end :-). > > >>> ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN > > >> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? > > >> ???????????? > academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > > OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > > %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > > D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > > %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > > B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > > BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > > D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> > > >>> ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? > > >> ??????????? ???????? > > >> https://www.avramus.com/app/ > > download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% > > BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% > > D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% > > D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% > > D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% > > BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 > > >> . > > >>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > > >>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, > > >> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before > > >> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica > > >> aside) :-) > > >>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is > > >> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, > > >> based on the general principles accepted in its framework > > >> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a > > >> common, unifying conception are usually considered the > > >> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. > > >> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions > > >> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the > > >> interpretation of these concepts. > > >>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle > > >> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible > > >> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is > > >> possible to consider both objective activity and > > >> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe > > >> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to > > >> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? > > >>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar > > >> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry > > >> and without answering them in the most general form, we > > >> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this > > >> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, > > >> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical > > >> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that > > >> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, > > >> based on which we can practically solve socially > > >> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently > > >> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the > > >> interesting only for us theoretical > > >> verbiage > multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ > > 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> > > >> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical > > >> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between > > >> Vygotsky and Leontiev. > > >>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too > > >> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and > > >> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central > > >> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > > >>> Agitprop > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? sticks > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? in my teeth too, > > >>> and I?d rather > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? compose > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? romances for you - > > >>> more profit in it > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? and more charm. > > >>> But I > > >>>? ? ? ? subdued > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? myself, > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? setting my heel > > >>> on the throat > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of my own song. > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Vladimir Mayakovski > > >>> > > >>> ? ??? > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????? ?????, > > >>> ? ??? ?? > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????? ?? ??? ? > > >>> ???????? ??? > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????. > > >>> ?? ? > > >>>? ? ? ? ???? > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????, > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????????? > > >>> ?? ????? > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????? ?????. > > >>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? ?????????? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced > > >> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to > > >> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to > > >> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally > > >> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract > > >> to the concrete. > > >>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions > > >> about how to understand the principle of interaction as > > >> such and about the relationship of object oriented > > >> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer > > >> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed > > >> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in > > >> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF > > >> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian > > >> ???????? ?????? ???????????? > > >> ???????????? > academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > > OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > > %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > > D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > > %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > > B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > > BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > > D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% > > D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . > > >> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the > > >> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is > > >> available in English. It was even sent in published in > > >> English international journal... but for some strange > > >> reason was not published then or later. > > >>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, > > >> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text > > >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > > CONSCIOUSNESS. > > >>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to > > >> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction > > >> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case > > >> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two > > >> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach > > >> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my > > >> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should > > >> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious > > >> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the > > >> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the > > >> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object > > >> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing > > >> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic > > >> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? > > >> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the > > >> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" > > >> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, > > >> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism > > >> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense > > >> that one can not in principle separate out its active and > > >> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in > > >> the process of positing of an object one side is active, > > >> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There > > >> are many interesting differences between them, but let us > > >> return to this somehow later. > > >>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation > > >> work of 1988: > > >>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation > > >> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two > > >> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken > > >> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is > > >> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It > > >> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to > > >> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) > > >> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? > > >> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant > > >> leaves (with his telescope). > > >>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation > > >> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously > > >> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital > > activity. > > >>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, > > >> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not > > >> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. > > >> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not > > >> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with > > >> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. > > >> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not > > >> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be > > >> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism > > >> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing > > >> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into > > >> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it > > >> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of > > >> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive > > relation.? > > >>> Now about the object oriented activity and > > >> communication, and it does not matter whether in the > > >> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's > > >> "addressing" to another person. > > >>> Which of these two categories should be considered > > >> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to > > >> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness > > >> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and > > >> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology > > >> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and > > Ilyenkov. > > >>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want > > >> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the > > >> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the > > >> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers > > >> believed that the method of ascent, the method of > > >> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to > > >> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical > > >> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one > > >> thing - either activity or communication. And at first > > >> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a > > >> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course > > >> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic > > >> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human > > >> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single > > >> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the > > >> social relations.. " > > >>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's > > >> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely > > >> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to > > >> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology > > >> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then > > >> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely > > >> difficult situation, because the classics left us with > > >> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it > > >> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, > > >> and with which in the second, it would still have to be > > >> solved by ourselves. > > >>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this > > >> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A > > >> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was > > >> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly > > >> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented > > >> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second > > >> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas > > >> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was > > >> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other > > >> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas > > >> "Leningraders" were for "communication". > > >>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our > > >> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a literal > > >> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our > > >> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a > > >> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the > > >> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something > > >> rather indecent. > > >>> The end of the discussion between supporters of > > >> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also > > >> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, > > >> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing > > >> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was > > >> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was > > >> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of > > >> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of > > >> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a > > >> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader > > >> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in > > >> the ideological department of the Central Committee of > > >> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific > > >> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in > > >> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the > > >> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed? supporters > > >> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's > > >> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE > > >> could not reverse the situation too. > > >>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to > > >> "communication" and "activity." > > >>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, > > >> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us > > >> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will > > >> choose the one of the two categories from which one can > > >> derive the entire diversity of human life, including > > >> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that > > >> such an initial category can only be object-oriented > > >> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the > > >> object oriented activity, which is an attribute property > > >> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, > > >> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we > > >> will never get life or object oriented activity even with > > >> the greatest diligence. > > >>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact > > >> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive > > >> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and > > >> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first > > >> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, > > >> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic > > >> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course > > >> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. > > >>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external > > >> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, > > >> together and practically producing their own lives, > > >> assumes a specifically human character, being a > > >> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. > > >>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" > > >> communication and the affective side of life are taken not > > >> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of > > >> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as > > >> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s > > >> REFLEXIVE side. > > >>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my diploma > > >> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist > > >> theoretical solution to the question of the relation of > > >> objective activity and "communication". In the same time, > > >> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active > > >> relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is > > >> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, > > >> any other, psychology. > > >>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable > > >> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, > > >> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the > > >> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large > > >> English text > > >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > > CONSCIOUSNESS > > >> and read it to the end :-). > > >>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN > > >> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? > > >> ???????????? > academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > > OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > > %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > > D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > > %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > > B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > > BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > > D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> > > >>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short > > >> English one > > >> https://www.avramus.com/app/ > > download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% > > BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% > > D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% > > D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% > > D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% > > BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. > > >>> Sasha > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Mon Oct 16 05:07:23 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 12:07:23 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> , <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> Haydi, I think Andy does not mean 'one capital' versus 'several capitals', for, if I read Andy adequately, Capital is for him not a unit but rather the whole of which commodity exchange is the unit. Thus, the germ cell of Capital is thus not Capital, or 'a' Capital, which you seem to attribute to Andy; just as I don't think he is arguing that there is consciousness, and then many consciousnesses. So it may be that you two agree more than disagree, judging by your last paragraph. Whether his position on singular and plurals is more or less adequate than another positions, that I leave it up to the discussion. Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? Sent: 16 October 2017 09:45 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Andy Blunden Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Thank you David for your explanation! Though for me it needs more than one read. The point was whether use of activity and activities in Leontiev is a contradiction. Whoever L was and whatever he believed in , he was not so negligent to the point of posing activity first and immediately after that recounting 'activities'. Translation ruled out a committed error. Then such a blundering display must have a justification rather than a misunderstanding in comprehension. In one sense all things are related. The more so with the Monistic View. We have so many corporate and incorporate things , two of them so problematic communication and practical activity since Descartes and we are determined to avoid Dualism and refer and return all phenomena to that same thing , the one substance. In the actuality of the world , there's nothing discrete , that is , absolutely unrelated. Is that pretext for us not to see this unbounded versatility and hues and dues as distinct coloring? Maybe one of the ways was for man to let Nature go unrestrained?? But man also did not come of its own will. The sole way destined or open to Man was of its Nature to engage with the surrounding. To deal with it sensually and subjectively/agently. Then Man in one time interpreted all phenomena as they appeared to him. But he grew up further than his infantile period. He learnt to delve into matters , go deeper and deeper. With one spectacle (plane) he observed how that single substance let its attributes multiply themselves into different shapes and colors and Modes. With another plane of the one spectacle observed the variation of the Modes themselves. I mean Ontology and Epistemology not yet separate from each other as I used a pair of planes for that matter. Then we usually don't use a nail-clipper for alterations and manipulations in Genes. Or devices for Genes for our feeding and nutrition. It is then within these constraints that corporate and incorporate phenomena differ. Singles and plurals differ. Discrete and the indivisible differ. Parts and Moments differ. Wholes and mere entities differ. A process and a product resulting from that process differ. No justification to interchange them because of the use of A in front of them. I wonder if this is true for others too. For me it's difficult to accept to say "this capital that capital" "those 8 capitals united" "capitals of the world dissolved into unanimity". If I'm correct in this , it's , I think , because Capital is a Whole , coming out of a long process of functions and disfunctions , moments of circulations and transient stagnation , booms and boosts and drawbacks and failures. The moment of its conception in the exchange of commodities up to the discovery of the private appropriation of the surplus value to the point of harnessing every means to penetrate each tight corner of the big World. Best Haydi From: David Kellogg To: Andy Blunden ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Monday, 16 October 2017, 2:21:12 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Of course, neither an object nor a process is discrete (or even, as Andy says, "discreet"). Who can tell me where a mountain river ends and the alluvial plain begins? Certainly not Cezanne or the phenomenologists who so loved him. Yet a mountain is most assuredly an object, just as surely as climbing the mountain to ascertain its degree of montagnitude is a process. This last week I've been struggling through the "Curriculum Reforms" wrought by three right wing governments in Norway, Finland, and New Zealand. Like Catalonia, these are all countries where unpopular coalitions of right parties are replacing a much more popular but obviously unsuccessful social democratic coalition of left parties. In Norway and in Finland, the coalition actually includes the far right, neo-fascist, anti-immigrant parties, and in New Zealand it includes the ACT, that is, an "association of consumers and taxpayers" whose main interest is cutting education budgets, starting by making teachers and students fight each other for scarce resources in the form of "block grants". Now, all of these governments are more or less bound by something called DeSeCo, which is short for Describe and Select Competences. This is because right-wing ideology sees education not as a public good but as a commodity, to be judged by tangible results and priced accordingly. This presents a real theoretical problem for right-wingers, because they ALSO see that "flexible labor markets" and "entrepreneurial spirit" means that there isn't any way of deciding on what skills or even what knowledge the "economy of the future" will demand. We can see this in the emphasis on "competence". Competence is not a thing or a process, and it is neither discrete nor discreet. Of course, if you are a linguist, competence is something Chomsky thought of in the sixties, an abstract form of knowledge in a hypothetical native speaker-hearer in an imaginary homogenous speech community. It is "discrete" in the sense of being nowhere and nowhen connectible to performance in any way. It is therefore "discreet" in the sense of being untestable--as soon as you test it, you have a form of performance, not competence. It's like standing in front of a classroom with a picture of a guy swimming and trying to teach the expression "i can swim". What you have in the picture is not "I can swim"; it's manifestly "he is swimming". But in DeSeCo, you get these lists of competences, which are set up as if they were discrete so you can list them on a Powerpoint slide and sell them to ministries of education. And the real selling point is that, on the one hand, because they are all "meta-skills" and "meta-knowledges", they don't have any practical outcome or real commitment to a job and a livelihood. And on the other, they sound terribly powerful when you phrase them as "learning to learn" or "transversal competence" or "meta-cognitive skills" or something like that. Jobs, in other words, are discretionary. After centuries of promising jobs and livelhood in return for school and boredom, the Western economies have decided that sticks are cheaper than carrots, and the thing to do is simply to rule people who don't have educational certificates out of the job market rather than try to provide actual know-how and factual know-that. Here are my four favorites (i.e. the four that we stress in our own curricular reform here in South Korea): interpersonal competence (sociability, the ability to 'be alone with others' as Hughlings Jackson put it) cultural competence (enculturation, the ability to understand traditions, mores, and norms) creative competence (intelligence, innovation, yadda yadda) individual competence (the ability to dress yourself, feed yourself, and show up for an interview where you will not be offered a job) Vygotsky, as usual, has a better idea--it's a mountain. We just turn the DeSeCO PPT upside down. Then we add each competence---freedom, creative intelligence, encultured habits and tastes, and instiinctive sociability--as a superstructure erected on the basis of the previous one: free will (the ability to make choices that are not necessarily intelligent or habitual or instinctive) intelligence (the ability to make choices that are not habitual or instinctive but nevertheless adaptive) enculturation (the ability to make choices that are not instinctive but conform to the choices that have proven successful in the now socialized environment) instinct (the ability to make choices that are responsive to the environment and which conform to the choices that have proven successful in phylogenesis) Are theses objects? Of course, if we say so. And processes? Well, how else could they have come about? What they are not, however, is either "discrete" or "discreet": they are clearly linked to each other, and they are all linked, through the lower layer, to adaptations ot the environment. And there's the rub--where the rubber meets the road. The real question, for our teachers and for our children, is about what will happen to them now that these competences can no longer be redeemed in jobs. Will the anti-Faustian bargain of exchanging your youth for a stable middle-aged livelihood survive? David Kellogg On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > Haydi, you say "AN activity is not a thing ; it's a > process." I wonder then what is a thing which is not also a > process? (I interpret "thing" as meaning "something > discrete," otherwise your objection makes no sense.) The > point is that Hegel does not make this dichotomy - every > thing is also a process and vice versa. That a process is > also discreet is important because it is only thanks to its > discreteness that we can cognise the process and in fact > only thanks to its discreteness that a process can affect > anything else. To speak of processes which are not also > discrete is to speak in abstractions. > > On this point, when Hegel puts ideas above matter, it has to > be realised that for Hegel "ideas" are social practices - he > is simply place human practice at the centre of human life > and its comprehension, rather than the mechanical and > chemical processes of Nature. If you think that "ideas" are > simply chimera inside our heads, then, of course, Hegel's > idealism seems like madness. > > Yes, all the Marxists have blasted Hegel. As they must. > Otherwise they must end up advocates of Constitutional > Monarchy. But while Marx uses almost every mention he makes > of Hegel to criticise him, often in extreme terms, it can go > unnoticed the extent to which in practice Marx follows Hegel > in philosophy. Of course Marx is not equal to Hegel, but > simple formulae do not contribute to understanding the relation. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 15/10/2017 6:51 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > > Andy, > > > > Let me first apologize to David Kellog because in others' > > wandering and perplexity it was he who in his reading of > > Gramsci's prison letters came across this point and made > > you not only accept the inappropriateness of Hegel's > > headstand as Crowning every worldly affair deriving from > > the People's Heads "Idea" , "Absolute" but also > > intensifying this point with more examples and references > > from Engels' "utopian versus genuine socialism" on your > > part. Of course you've been helping us on many occasions > > and you're very welcome for this nothing to be denied. > > > > At this point we have no problem with translation. > > Leontiev meant it. > > > > Suppose that ANL does not know "individual" which is very > > ambiguous because in what then one should seek the > > embodiment of the "particular" and if one takes the very > > particular as individual , then everything gets mixed up . > > Then what about you who stick firmly on individual > > discrete detached activities as an objection to Sasha's > > sole ACTIVITY as theoretical understanding. > > > > As you well know even AN activity is not a thing ; it's a > > process. And you once distinguished between GENERAL WORK > > ACTIVITY and LABOUR ACTIVITY or VALORIZATION ACTIVITY > > which was quite right and timely though you recently gave > > differing definitions in no way harmonious to your > > previous definitions. But the main problem is blending > > clarity in expression with concrete in theory. No doubt > > you're a Fan of Hegel. I should repeat myself : Hegel is a > > hero of theoretical concepts. In theorizing , and for him > > to explicate the Essence of Phenomena , he begins with > > apparently concrete things as ABSTRACTS finally reaches > > CONCRETE UNIVERSALS as concepts. And here we again very > > surprisingly see you put your finger upon what you should > > have known in person is contrary to your own erudition. > > Turning Hegel down as believing in discrete abstracts. > > > > And now to his son's comment : What individual are you > > pursuing? Your Hegel sees phenomena in their relations. > > According to him and also according to ANL ACTIVITY as a > > unit of Life is Molar non-additive. He even does not see > > operations as single acts. It's a matter of the angle of > > vision not detachment and concreteness. If his son had > > talked of concreteness in moments of activity , then you > > were right in your objections and oppositions. You please > > give us your last definition of activity here (not in > > lengthy references) so that we can have a discerning > > option. > > So far to remove the problem we should accept operations > > are separately and independently carried out ; actions in > > their own are carried out ; activities are carried out > > arbitrarily. And these are done to the realization of man > > as the ensemble of social relations based on some > > infrastructure. > > > > Hegel's metaphor has been thrown back at him by Marx , > > Engels , Lenin , Vygotsky , Ilyenko , and many others. If > > you like to stand above all Giants of Marxism , it's > > something perfectly and absolutely Personal as you're > > speaking out loud! Then why give us so many references. > > > > Best > > > > Haydi > > > > P.S. Alfredo! Though you have my previous private response > > concerning the matters you pose I see myself accountable > > to rewrite them to the Public. Thanks! > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Andy Blunden > > *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > *Sent:* Sunday, 15 October 2017, 5:35:40 > > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity > > and communication > > > > Haydi, partly the problem with ANL's > > philosophy-as-we-know-it is simply a product of its > > translation into English. But partly it is also in his > > philosophy. As Victor Kaptelinin first pointed out (so far > > as I know), ANL knows the universal and the particular but > > he does not know the individual. And his son's comment that > > ANL did not conceive of Activity as being discrete proves > > this to be the case. Thus his concept of Activity is not a > > fully concrete concept. And this is not a product of > > translation. > > > > As David Kellogg has kindly pointed out to me, it was Hegel > > who actually first introduced this metaphor of people > > "walking (or standing) on their heads." Personally, I don't > > think it has ever helped anyone understand the defect of > > Hegel's philosophy to throw this metaphor back at him. As > > demonstrated in this issue (the concept of activity) it was > > Hegel who understood that a concept must have all three > > moments - universal, particular and individual. > > > > Andy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 15/10/2017 9:24 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > > > Dear Mike, > > > Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an > > activist for his concreteness and clarifications is > > crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot > > ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes , Parts , > > and Moments. He personally provided us with examples from > > Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they convert > > Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced with the > > same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most > > valuable contribution) does not begin with the individual > > case in isolation which phenomenologically speaking (in > > contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for > > appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not obtained > > because one instance is considered detached from all > > relations and its subservience to the service of the > > Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is particular in > > some feature/s. And these particulars are essential. With > > other particulars in other individuals they are related > > actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense , this whole > > could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life itself. > > Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is , > > with category and concept only therefore , following Marx > > and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again on his > > feet (not that the firmament to that time did put "idea" > > on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on their > > heads but to put them again headstand thinking and acting > > with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just > > with their brains. Then taking all options in translation > > even that of a Machine into consideration it does not seem > > to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of > > Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of > > activities thereafter. These activities are those arising > > from the properties of versatile objects in turn arising > > from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile > > needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think > > Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual > > activities as moments with the broadest idea of the > > Monistic Substantial Modes or States in Philosophical > > terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn integrate and > > are dissolved into Monism of Substance. > > > > > > Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche > > (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one > > Substance) is already there with the organism actively and > > spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own , > > positioning its due object and moving along its contours > > and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to itself > > , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and > > bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as > > novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with > > Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with a huge > > gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of > > consciousness , now apparently ascending to "wording" and > > "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration) further > > "communication" as something indispensable and necessary > > and inevitable to the realization of life affairs. > > > Best > > > Haydi > > > > > > > > >? From: mike cole > > > > >? To: Andy Blunden > >; "eXtended Mind, Culture, > > Activity" > > > > > Cc: Alexander Surmava > >; ivan-dgf > > >; Ivan > > Uemlianin >; > > Haydi Zulfei > > > > >? Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50 > > >? Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > > activity and communication > > > > > > Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.Could someone post > > the Russian text next to the English so that it is > > possible to compare it with the translation? I spent > > several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of > > Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally defeated > > me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra rubles in > > my pocket. > > > Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us > > a "true" translation. > > > mike > > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden > > > wrote: > > > > > > The Progress Publishers English translation of "Activity and > > > Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of > > > Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: > > > > > >? Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, > > >? material life of the material subject. In the narrower > > >? sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a unit of > > >? life, mediated by mental reflection, by > > >? an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the > > >? subject in the objective world. > > > > > > In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The > > > Development of Mind" we have: > > > > > > Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an > > > organism?s activity; the different activities that realise > > > its diverse vital relations with the surrounding reality are > > > essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore > > > differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively > > > different] types of activity according to the difference in > > > their objects. > > > > > > By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses > > > "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has > > > been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for > > > English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean simply > > > "category." The second does the same, but in addition makes > > > it evident that the plural does not refer to different > > > activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the > > > possibility of forming a true concept of activity > > altogether. > > > > > > With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is > > > simply that "such an initial *category* can only be > > > object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing > > > that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, > > > even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. > > > > > > Andy > > > ------------------------------ > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > Andy Blunden > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics. > > org/ablunden/index.htm > > > On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: > > >> Dear Andy! > > >> I am glad that our communication was resumed after many > > >> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and files > > >> and found that the problem of "object oriented activity OR > > >> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before > > >> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is serious and > > >> it deserves to return to it today. > > >> Last year I was close to being silent forever. > > >> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed > > >> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the > > >> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my > > >> theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my > > >> descendants :-). > > >> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not > > >> understand your question. What means the distinction > > >> between singular and plural number in your remark? Could > > >> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the > > >> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my > > >> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, > > >> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of > > >> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my dissertation > > >> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's "Theory of > > >> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, > > >> having understood the theoretic meaning of your claims to > > >> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily > > >> understand the essence of your objections to me. > > >> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I > > >> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a > > >> particular empirical case of its manifestation. Therefore, > > >> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just like > > >> Matter, Nature, or Substance. > > >> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come across > > >> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its > > >> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the > > >> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old > > >> philosophers and that only the numerous individual "atomic > > >> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really > > >> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar > > >> positivism and empiricism. > > >> However, all of this may not apply to your position ... > > >> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. > > >> Best wishes > > >> Sasha > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden > > >> > ?????(?): > > >> > > >> > > >> I'll ask Sasha a question. > > >> > > >> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial > > >> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it > > stands, > > >> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be > > that you > > >> are translating it from a Russian statement that is > > correct. > > >> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in when I > > >> say "every activity has an object."? But in your expression > > >> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and > > unless > > >> you are a religious person is not something which can > > have a > > >> specific object. All English translations of A N Leontyev > > >> make this mistake which has caused no end of confusion > > among > > >> English-speakers. > > >> > > >> Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," just as > > >> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." > > >> > > >> Andy > > >> > > >> ------------------------------ > > ------------------------------ > > >> Andy Blunden > > >> http://www.ethicalpolitics. > > org/ablunden/index.htm > > >> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > >>> Dear Sasha, all, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding > > >> response. I think you are right in your assertion that we > > >> are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of > > >> CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. However, one > > >> can see in the lack of response by other members?? that > > >> not everyone has the privilege of the time it requires to > > >> go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing > > >> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce and I > > >> hope it is/will be appreciated as such. > > >>> > > >>> If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I quote > > >> from your response: > > >>> > > >>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial category, > > >> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us > > >> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will > > >> choose the one of the two categories from which one can > > >> derive the entire diversity of human life, including > > >> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that > > >> such an initial category can only be object-oriented > > >> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the > > >> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from > > >> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such > > >> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or > > >> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" > > >>> > > >>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework > > >> according to which we are looking of the most original > > >> germ cell, the one from which all others can be > > >> developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I > > >> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree on > > that. > > >>> > > >>> But ??once we are back to the development of a concrete > > >> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact that, for > > >> any child to participate in human forms of object-oriented > > >> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented > > >> activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular > > >> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into those > > >> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category > > >> devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with > > >> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you describe, is > > >> this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, or is > > >> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? > > >>> > > >>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others answer > > >> (which I hope some do). > > >>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in > > >> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of teaching > > >> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this > > >> is only possible through *involvement* in collective > > >> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary > > >> over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is > > >> only possible in and through object-oriented activity). > > >> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional aspect of > > >> the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to > > >> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this > > >> object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all > > >> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually > > >> uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such > > >> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get > > >> collective activity without them? On this, and precisely > > >> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of Man", > > >> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in that > > >> case that communication is included in activity and is its > > >> essential component: without relation to another > > >> person(s), activity is impossible' (144). Although I not > > >> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I can't > > >> see how he can be wrong. > > >>> > > >>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of > > >> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the > > >> category of object-oriented activity, is most primary. Let > > >> me also note that ?there are other authors who have > > >> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you > > >> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on > > >> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom > > >> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of auto-affection' ( > > >> https://www.amazon.com/ Incarnation-Philosophy- > > Studies-Phenomenology- Existential/dp/0810131269 > > >> ) > > >>> > > >>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I wonder > > >> whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity > > >> and communication. Is not the distinction just an artefact > > >> of a partial understanding of what it means activity and > > >> what it means communicating. I still feel that > > >> communication, in the sense of addressivity that Mikhailov > > >> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for > > >> semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity > > >> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't > > >> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps > > >> naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication > > >> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in > > >> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I > > >> don't see how any practical activity can have any sense > > >> (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. > > >> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are > > >> talking about; one machines could perform on their own > > >> without consciousness. ? > > >>> > > >>> Best wishes, > > >>> > > >>> Alfredo > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> ______________________________ __ > > >>> From: Alexander Surmava > > > >> > > > >>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 > > >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > >> > edu>; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo > > >> Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole > > >>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication > > >>> > > >>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > > >>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, > > >> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before > > >> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica > > >> aside) :-) > > >>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is > > >> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, > > >> based on the general principles accepted in its framework > > >> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a > > >> common, unifying conception are usually considered the > > >> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. > > >> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions > > >> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the > > >> interpretation of these concepts. > > >>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle > > >> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible > > >> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is > > >> possible to consider both objective activity and > > >> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe > > >> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to > > >> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? > > >>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar > > >> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry > > >> and without answering them in the most general form, we > > >> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this > > >> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, > > >> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical > > >> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that > > >> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, > > >> based on which we can practically solve socially > > >> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently > > >> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the > > >> interesting only for us theoretical > > >> verbiage > multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ > > 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> > > >> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical > > >> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between > > >> Vygotsky and Leontiev. > > >>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too > > >> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and > > >> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central > > >> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > > >>> Agitprop > > >>>? sticks > > >>>? in my teeth too, > > >>> and I?d rather > > >>>? compose > > >>>? romances for you - > > >>> more profit in it > > >>>? and more charm. > > >>> But I > > >>>? subdued > > >>>? myself, > > >>>? setting my heel > > >>> on the throat > > >>>? of my own song. > > >>>? Vladimir Mayakovski > > >>> > > >>> ? ??? > > >>>? ???????? > > >>>? ? ????? ?????, > > >>> ? ??? ?? > > >>>? ???????? > > >>>? ??????? ?? ??? ? > > >>> ???????? ??? > > >>>? ? ??????????. > > >>> ?? ? > > >>>? ???? > > >>>? ??????, > > >>>? ????????? > > >>> ?? ????? > > >>>? ??????????? ?????. > > >>>? ???????? ?????????? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced > > >> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to > > >> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to > > >> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally > > >> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract > > >> to the concrete. > > >>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions > > >> about how to understand the principle of interaction as > > >> such and about the relationship of object oriented > > >> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer > > >> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed > > >> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in > > >> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF > > >> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian > > >> ???????? ?????? ???????????? > > >> ???????????? > academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > > OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > > %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > > D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > > %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > > B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > > BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > > D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% > > D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . > > >> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the > > >> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is > > >> available in English. It was even sent in published in > > >> English international journal... but for some strange > > >> reason was not published then or later. > > >>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, > > >> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text > > >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > > CONSCIOUSNESS. > > >>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to > > >> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction > > >> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case > > >> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two > > >> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach > > >> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my > > >> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should > > >> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious > > >> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the > > >> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the > > >> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object > > >> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing > > >> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic > > >> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? > > >> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the > > >> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" > > >> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, > > >> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism > > >> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense > > >> that one can not in principle separate out its active and > > >> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in > > >> the process of positing of an object one side is active, > > >> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There > > >> are many interesting differences between them, but let us > > >> return to this somehow later. > > >>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation > > >> work of 1988: > > >>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation > > >> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two > > >> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken > > >> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is > > >> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It > > >> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to > > >> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) > > >> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? > > >> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant > > >> leaves (with his telescope). > > >>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation > > >> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously > > >> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital > > activity. > > >>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, > > >> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not > > >> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. > > >> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not > > >> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with > > >> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. > > >> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not > > >> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be > > >> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism > > >> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing > > >> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into > > >> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it > > >> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of > > >> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive > > relation.? > > >>> Now about the object oriented activity and > > >> communication, and it does not matter whether in the > > >> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's > > >> "addressing" to another person. > > >>> Which of these two categories should be considered > > >> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to > > >> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness > > >> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and > > >> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology > > >> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and > > Ilyenkov. > > >>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want > > >> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the > > >> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the > > >> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers > > >> believed that the method of ascent, the method of > > >> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to > > >> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical > > >> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one > > >> thing - either activity or communication. And at first > > >> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a > > >> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course > > >> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic > > >> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human > > >> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single > > >> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the > > >> social relations.. " > > >>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's > > >> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely > > >> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to > > >> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology > > >> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then > > >> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely > > >> difficult situation, because the classics left us with > > >> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it > > >> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, > > >> and with which in the second, it would still have to be > > >> solved by ourselves. > > >>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this > > >> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A > > >> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was AN > > >> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly > > >> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented > > >> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second > > >> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of > > >> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was inclined to > > >> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, > > >> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" > > >> were for communication. > > >>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our > > >> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal > > >> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our > > >> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a > > >> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the > > >> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something > > >> rather indecent. > > >>> The end of the discussion between supporters of > > >> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also > > >> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, > > >> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing > > >> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was > > >> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was > > >> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of > > >> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of > > >> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a > > >> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader > > >> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in > > >> the ideological department of the Central Committee of > > >> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific > > >> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in > > >> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the > > >> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters > > >> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's > > >> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE > > >> could not reverse the situation too. > > >>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to > > >> "communication" and "activity." > > >>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, > > >> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us > > >> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will > > >> choose the one of the two categories from which one can > > >> derive the entire diversity of human life, including > > >> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that > > >> such an initial category can only be object-oriented > > >> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the > > >> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from > > >> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such > > >> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or > > >> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. > > >>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact > > >> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive > > >> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and > > >> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first > > >> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, > > >> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic > > >> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course > > >> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. > > >> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external > > >> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, > > >> together and practically producing their own lives, > > >> assumes a specifically human character, being a > > >> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. > > >>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" > > >> communication and the affective side of life are taken not > > >> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of > > >> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as > > >> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s > > >> REFLEXIVE side. > > >>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my > > >> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a > > >> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the > > >> relation of objective activity and "communication". In the > > >> same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, > > >> the active relation of the subject to the object and to > > >> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, > > >> indeed, any other, psychology. > > >>> ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????, > > >> ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, > > >> ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, > > >> ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? > > >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > > CONSCIOUSNESS > > >> ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. > > >>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable > > >> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, > > >> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the > > >> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large > > >> English text > > >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > > CONSCIOUSNESS > > >> and read it to the end :-). > > >>> ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN > > >> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? > > >> ???????????? > academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > > OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > > %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > > D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > > %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > > B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > > BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > > D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> > > >>> ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? > > >> ??????????? ???????? > > >> https://www.avramus.com/app/ > > download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% > > BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% > > D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% > > D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% > > D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% > > BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 > > >> . > > >>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > > >>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, > > >> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before > > >> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica > > >> aside) :-) > > >>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is > > >> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, > > >> based on the general principles accepted in its framework > > >> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a > > >> common, unifying conception are usually considered the > > >> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. > > >> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions > > >> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the > > >> interpretation of these concepts. > > >>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle > > >> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible > > >> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is > > >> possible to consider both objective activity and > > >> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe > > >> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to > > >> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? > > >>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar > > >> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry > > >> and without answering them in the most general form, we > > >> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this > > >> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, > > >> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical > > >> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that > > >> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, > > >> based on which we can practically solve socially > > >> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently > > >> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the > > >> interesting only for us theoretical > > >> verbiage > multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ > > 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> > > >> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical > > >> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between > > >> Vygotsky and Leontiev. > > >>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too > > >> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and > > >> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central > > >> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > > >>> Agitprop > > >>>? sticks > > >>>? in my teeth too, > > >>> and I?d rather > > >>>? compose > > >>>? romances for you - > > >>> more profit in it > > >>>? and more charm. > > >>> But I > > >>>? subdued > > >>>? myself, > > >>>? setting my heel > > >>> on the throat > > >>>? of my own song. > > >>>? Vladimir Mayakovski > > >>> > > >>> ? ??? > > >>>? ???????? > > >>>? ? ????? ?????, > > >>> ? ??? ?? > > >>>? ???????? > > >>>? ??????? ?? ??? ? > > >>> ???????? ??? > > >>>? ? ??????????. > > >>> ?? ? > > >>>? ???? > > >>>? ??????, > > >>>? ????????? > > >>> ?? ????? > > >>>? ??????????? ?????. > > >>>? ???????? ?????????? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced > > >> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to > > >> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to > > >> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally > > >> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract > > >> to the concrete. > > >>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions > > >> about how to understand the principle of interaction as > > >> such and about the relationship of object oriented > > >> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer > > >> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed > > >> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in > > >> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF > > >> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian > > >> ???????? ?????? ???????????? > > >> ???????????? > academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > > OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > > %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > > D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > > %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > > B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > > BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > > D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% > > D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . > > >> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the > > >> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is > > >> available in English. It was even sent in published in > > >> English international journal... but for some strange > > >> reason was not published then or later. > > >>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, > > >> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text > > >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > > CONSCIOUSNESS. > > >>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to > > >> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction > > >> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case > > >> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two > > >> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach > > >> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my > > >> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should > > >> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious > > >> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the > > >> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the > > >> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object > > >> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing > > >> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic > > >> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? > > >> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the > > >> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" > > >> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, > > >> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism > > >> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense > > >> that one can not in principle separate out its active and > > >> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in > > >> the process of positing of an object one side is active, > > >> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There > > >> are many interesting differences between them, but let us > > >> return to this somehow later. > > >>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation > > >> work of 1988: > > >>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation > > >> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two > > >> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken > > >> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is > > >> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It > > >> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to > > >> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) > > >> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? > > >> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant > > >> leaves (with his telescope). > > >>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation > > >> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously > > >> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital > > activity. > > >>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, > > >> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not > > >> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. > > >> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not > > >> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with > > >> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. > > >> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not > > >> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be > > >> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism > > >> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing > > >> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into > > >> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it > > >> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of > > >> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive > > relation.? > > >>> Now about the object oriented activity and > > >> communication, and it does not matter whether in the > > >> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's > > >> "addressing" to another person. > > >>> Which of these two categories should be considered > > >> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to > > >> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness > > >> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and > > >> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology > > >> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and > > Ilyenkov. > > >>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want > > >> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the > > >> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the > > >> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers > > >> believed that the method of ascent, the method of > > >> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to > > >> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical > > >> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one > > >> thing - either activity or communication. And at first > > >> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a > > >> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course > > >> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic > > >> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human > > >> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single > > >> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the > > >> social relations.. " > > >>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's > > >> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely > > >> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to > > >> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology > > >> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then > > >> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely > > >> difficult situation, because the classics left us with > > >> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it > > >> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, > > >> and with which in the second, it would still have to be > > >> solved by ourselves. > > >>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this > > >> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A > > >> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was > > >> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly > > >> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented > > >> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second > > >> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas > > >> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was > > >> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other > > >> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas > > >> "Leningraders" were for "communication". > > >>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our > > >> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a literal > > >> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our > > >> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a > > >> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the > > >> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something > > >> rather indecent. > > >>> The end of the discussion between supporters of > > >> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also > > >> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, > > >> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing > > >> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was > > >> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was > > >> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of > > >> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of > > >> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a > > >> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader > > >> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in > > >> the ideological department of the Central Committee of > > >> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific > > >> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in > > >> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the > > >> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters > > >> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's > > >> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE > > >> could not reverse the situation too. > > >>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to > > >> "communication" and "activity." > > >>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, > > >> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us > > >> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will > > >> choose the one of the two categories from which one can > > >> derive the entire diversity of human life, including > > >> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that > > >> such an initial category can only be object-oriented > > >> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the > > >> object oriented activity, which is an attribute property > > >> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, > > >> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we > > >> will never get life or object oriented activity even with > > >> the greatest diligence. > > >>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact > > >> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive > > >> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and > > >> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first > > >> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, > > >> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic > > >> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course > > >> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. > > >>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external > > >> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, > > >> together and practically producing their own lives, > > >> assumes a specifically human character, being a > > >> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. > > >>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" > > >> communication and the affective side of life are taken not > > >> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of > > >> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as > > >> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s > > >> REFLEXIVE side. > > >>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my diploma > > >> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist > > >> theoretical solution to the question of the relation of > > >> objective activity and "communication". In the same time, > > >> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active > > >> relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is > > >> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, > > >> any other, psychology. > > >>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable > > >> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, > > >> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the > > >> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large > > >> English text > > >> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > > CONSCIOUSNESS > > >> and read it to the end :-). > > >>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN > > >> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? > > >> ???????????? > academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > > OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > > %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > > D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > > %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > > B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > > BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > > D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> > > >>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short > > >> English one > > >> https://www.avramus.com/app/ > > download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% > > BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% > > D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% > > D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% > > D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% > > BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. > > >>> Sasha > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From ablunden@mira.net Mon Oct 16 05:18:25 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 23:18:25 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> No, Alfredo. A unit of capital is a firm (or company). It is impossible to explain the formation of a rate of profit (at least as Marx does in /Capital/) without the conception of units of capital, namely, firms and the competition between them. Firms are of course, what Engestrom would call a "system of activity" or I would call a "project" and Leontyev almost could call an activity. But in the USSR there were no firms, only the state. It is perhaps A N Leonytev's greatest discovery that there are both micro and molar units in any complex process. True in Psychology and true in political economy. Whereas exchange of commodities is an artefact-mediated action, a firm is an activity, a specific aggregate of actions, directed towards the quantitative maximisation of the value of the unit of capital. English is not a perfect language either. : ) The word "consciousness" has the unfortunate connotation of being a mass noun (or continuous substance) whereas it is know only, of course, in individual "consciousnesses" or "minds." But it sounds so clumsy to say "a consciousness." Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 16/10/2017 11:07 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Haydi, > > I think Andy does not mean 'one capital' versus 'several capitals', for, if I read Andy adequately, Capital is for him not a unit but rather the whole of which commodity exchange is the unit. Thus, the germ cell of Capital is thus not Capital, or 'a' Capital, which you seem to attribute to Andy; just as I don't think he is arguing that there is consciousness, and then many consciousnesses. So it may be that you two agree more than disagree, judging by your last paragraph. > > Whether his position on singular and plurals is more or less adequate than another positions, that I leave it up to the discussion. > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? > Sent: 16 October 2017 09:45 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Andy Blunden > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication > > Thank you David for your explanation! Though for me it needs more than one read. > > The point was whether use of activity and activities in Leontiev is a contradiction. Whoever L was and whatever he believed in , he was not so negligent to the point of posing activity first and immediately after that recounting 'activities'. Translation ruled out a committed error. Then such a blundering display must have a justification rather than a misunderstanding in comprehension. > > In one sense all things are related. The more so with the Monistic View. We have so many corporate and incorporate things , two of them so problematic communication and practical activity since Descartes and we are determined to avoid Dualism and refer and return all phenomena to that same thing , the one substance. In the actuality of the world , there's nothing discrete , that is , absolutely unrelated. Is that pretext for us not to see this unbounded versatility and hues and dues as distinct coloring? Maybe one of the ways was for man to let Nature go unrestrained?? But man also did not come of its own will. > > The sole way destined or open to Man was of its Nature to engage with the surrounding. To deal with it sensually and subjectively/agently. Then Man in one time interpreted all phenomena as they appeared to him. But he grew up further than his infantile period. He learnt to delve into matters , go deeper and deeper. With one spectacle (plane) he observed how that single substance let its attributes multiply themselves into different shapes and colors and Modes. With another plane of the one spectacle observed the variation of the Modes themselves. I mean Ontology and Epistemology not yet separate from each other as I used a pair of planes for that matter. > > Then we usually don't use a nail-clipper for alterations and manipulations in Genes. Or devices for Genes for our feeding and nutrition. It is then within these constraints that corporate and incorporate phenomena differ. Singles and plurals differ. Discrete and the indivisible differ. Parts and Moments differ. Wholes and mere entities differ. A process and a product resulting from that process differ. No justification to interchange them because of the use of A in front of them. > > I wonder if this is true for others too. For me it's difficult to accept to say "this capital that capital" "those 8 capitals united" "capitals of the world dissolved into unanimity". If I'm correct in this , it's , I think , because Capital is a Whole , coming out of a long process of functions and disfunctions , moments of circulations and transient stagnation , booms and boosts and drawbacks and failures. The moment of its conception in the exchange of commodities up to the discovery of the private appropriation of the surplus value to the point of harnessing every means to penetrate each tight corner of the big World. > > Best > Haydi > > > From: David Kellogg > To: Andy Blunden ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Sent: Monday, 16 October 2017, 2:21:12 > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication > > Of course, neither an object nor a process is discrete (or even, as Andy > says, "discreet"). Who can tell me where a mountain river ends and the > alluvial plain begins? Certainly not Cezanne or the phenomenologists who so > loved him. Yet a mountain is most assuredly an object, just as surely > as climbing the mountain to ascertain its degree of montagnitude is a > process. > > This last week I've been struggling through the "Curriculum Reforms" > wrought by three right wing governments in Norway, Finland, and New > Zealand. Like Catalonia, these are all countries where unpopular coalitions > of right parties are replacing a much more popular but obviously > unsuccessful social democratic coalition of left parties. In Norway and in > Finland, the coalition actually includes the far right, neo-fascist, > anti-immigrant parties, and in New Zealand it includes the ACT, that is, an > "association of consumers and taxpayers" whose main interest is cutting > education budgets, starting by making teachers and students fight each > other for scarce resources in the form of "block grants". > > Now, all of these governments are more or less bound by something called > DeSeCo, which is short for Describe and Select Competences. This is because > right-wing ideology sees education not as a public good but as a commodity, > to be judged by tangible results and priced accordingly. This presents a > real theoretical problem for right-wingers, because they ALSO see that > "flexible labor markets" and "entrepreneurial spirit" means that there > isn't any way of deciding on what skills or even what knowledge the > "economy of the future" will demand. > > We can see this in the emphasis on "competence". Competence is not a thing > or a process, and it is neither discrete nor discreet. Of course, if you > are a linguist, competence is something Chomsky thought of in the sixties, > an abstract form of knowledge in a hypothetical native speaker-hearer in an > imaginary homogenous speech community. It is "discrete" in the sense of > being nowhere and nowhen connectible to performance in any way. It is > therefore "discreet" in the sense of being untestable--as soon as you test > it, you have a form of performance, not competence. It's like standing in > front of a classroom with a picture of a guy swimming and trying to teach > the expression "i can swim". What you have in the picture is not "I can > swim"; it's manifestly "he is swimming". > > But in DeSeCo, you get these lists of competences, which are set up as if > they were discrete so you can list them on a Powerpoint slide and sell them > to ministries of education. And the real selling point is that, on the one > hand, because they are all "meta-skills" and "meta-knowledges", they don't > have any practical outcome or real commitment to a job and a livelihood. > And on the other, they sound terribly powerful when you phrase them as > "learning to learn" or "transversal competence" or "meta-cognitive skills" > or something like that. Jobs, in other words, are discretionary. After > centuries of promising jobs and livelhood in return for school and boredom, > the Western economies have decided that sticks are cheaper than carrots, > and the thing to do is simply to rule people who don't have educational > certificates out of the job market rather than try to provide > actual know-how and factual know-that. > > Here are my four favorites (i.e. the four that we stress in our own > curricular reform here in South Korea): > > interpersonal competence (sociability, the ability to 'be alone with > others' as Hughlings Jackson put it) > cultural competence (enculturation, the ability to understand traditions, > mores, and norms) > creative competence (intelligence, innovation, yadda yadda) > individual competence (the ability to dress yourself, feed yourself, and > show up for an interview where you will not be offered a job) > > Vygotsky, as usual, has a better idea--it's a mountain. We just turn the > DeSeCO PPT upside down. Then we add each competence---freedom, creative > intelligence, encultured habits and tastes, and instiinctive > sociability--as a superstructure erected on the basis of the previous one: > > free will (the ability to make choices that are not necessarily intelligent > or habitual or instinctive) > intelligence (the ability to make choices that are not habitual or > instinctive but nevertheless adaptive) > enculturation (the ability to make choices that are not instinctive but > conform to the choices that have proven successful in the now socialized > environment) > instinct (the ability to make choices that are responsive to the > environment and which conform to the choices that have proven successful in > phylogenesis) > > Are theses objects? Of course, if we say so. And processes? Well, how else > could they have come about? What they are not, however, is either > "discrete" or "discreet": they are clearly linked to each other, and they > are all linked, through the lower layer, to adaptations ot the environment. > > And there's the rub--where the rubber meets the road. The real question, > for our teachers and for our children, is about what will happen to them > now that these competences can no longer be redeemed in jobs. Will the > anti-Faustian bargain of exchanging your youth for a > stable middle-aged livelihood survive? > > David Kellogg > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > >> Haydi, you say "AN activity is not a thing ; it's a >> process." I wonder then what is a thing which is not also a >> process? (I interpret "thing" as meaning "something >> discrete," otherwise your objection makes no sense.) The >> point is that Hegel does not make this dichotomy - every >> thing is also a process and vice versa. That a process is >> also discreet is important because it is only thanks to its >> discreteness that we can cognise the process and in fact >> only thanks to its discreteness that a process can affect >> anything else. To speak of processes which are not also >> discrete is to speak in abstractions. >> >> On this point, when Hegel puts ideas above matter, it has to >> be realised that for Hegel "ideas" are social practices - he >> is simply place human practice at the centre of human life >> and its comprehension, rather than the mechanical and >> chemical processes of Nature. If you think that "ideas" are >> simply chimera inside our heads, then, of course, Hegel's >> idealism seems like madness. >> >> Yes, all the Marxists have blasted Hegel. As they must. >> Otherwise they must end up advocates of Constitutional >> Monarchy. But while Marx uses almost every mention he makes >> of Hegel to criticise him, often in extreme terms, it can go >> unnoticed the extent to which in practice Marx follows Hegel >> in philosophy. Of course Marx is not equal to Hegel, but >> simple formulae do not contribute to understanding the relation. >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 15/10/2017 6:51 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: >>> Andy, >>> >>> Let me first apologize to David Kellog because in others' >>> wandering and perplexity it was he who in his reading of >>> Gramsci's prison letters came across this point and made >>> you not only accept the inappropriateness of Hegel's >>> headstand as Crowning every worldly affair deriving from >>> the People's Heads "Idea" , "Absolute" but also >>> intensifying this point with more examples and references >>> from Engels' "utopian versus genuine socialism" on your >>> part. Of course you've been helping us on many occasions >>> and you're very welcome for this nothing to be denied. >>> >>> At this point we have no problem with translation. >>> Leontiev meant it. >>> >>> Suppose that ANL does not know "individual" which is very >>> ambiguous because in what then one should seek the >>> embodiment of the "particular" and if one takes the very >>> particular as individual , then everything gets mixed up . >>> Then what about you who stick firmly on individual >>> discrete detached activities as an objection to Sasha's >>> sole ACTIVITY as theoretical understanding. >>> >>> As you well know even AN activity is not a thing ; it's a >>> process. And you once distinguished between GENERAL WORK >>> ACTIVITY and LABOUR ACTIVITY or VALORIZATION ACTIVITY >>> which was quite right and timely though you recently gave >>> differing definitions in no way harmonious to your >>> previous definitions. But the main problem is blending >>> clarity in expression with concrete in theory. No doubt >>> you're a Fan of Hegel. I should repeat myself : Hegel is a >>> hero of theoretical concepts. In theorizing , and for him >>> to explicate the Essence of Phenomena , he begins with >>> apparently concrete things as ABSTRACTS finally reaches >>> CONCRETE UNIVERSALS as concepts. And here we again very >>> surprisingly see you put your finger upon what you should >>> have known in person is contrary to your own erudition. >>> Turning Hegel down as believing in discrete abstracts. >>> >>> And now to his son's comment : What individual are you >>> pursuing? Your Hegel sees phenomena in their relations. >>> According to him and also according to ANL ACTIVITY as a >>> unit of Life is Molar non-additive. He even does not see >>> operations as single acts. It's a matter of the angle of >>> vision not detachment and concreteness. If his son had >>> talked of concreteness in moments of activity , then you >>> were right in your objections and oppositions. You please >>> give us your last definition of activity here (not in >>> lengthy references) so that we can have a discerning >>> option. >>> So far to remove the problem we should accept operations >>> are separately and independently carried out ; actions in >>> their own are carried out ; activities are carried out >>> arbitrarily. And these are done to the realization of man >>> as the ensemble of social relations based on some >>> infrastructure. >>> >>> Hegel's metaphor has been thrown back at him by Marx , >>> Engels , Lenin , Vygotsky , Ilyenko , and many others. If >>> you like to stand above all Giants of Marxism , it's >>> something perfectly and absolutely Personal as you're >>> speaking out loud! Then why give us so many references. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Haydi >>> >>> P.S. Alfredo! Though you have my previous private response >>> concerning the matters you pose I see myself accountable >>> to rewrite them to the Public. Thanks! >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *From:* Andy Blunden >>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> *Sent:* Sunday, 15 October 2017, 5:35:40 >>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity >>> and communication >>> >>> Haydi, partly the problem with ANL's >>> philosophy-as-we-know-it is simply a product of its >>> translation into English. But partly it is also in his >>> philosophy. As Victor Kaptelinin first pointed out (so far >>> as I know), ANL knows the universal and the particular but >>> he does not know the individual. And his son's comment that >>> ANL did not conceive of Activity as being discrete proves >>> this to be the case. Thus his concept of Activity is not a >>> fully concrete concept. And this is not a product of >>> translation. >>> >>> As David Kellogg has kindly pointed out to me, it was Hegel >>> who actually first introduced this metaphor of people >>> "walking (or standing) on their heads." Personally, I don't >>> think it has ever helped anyone understand the defect of >>> Hegel's philosophy to throw this metaphor back at him. As >>> demonstrated in this issue (the concept of activity) it was >>> Hegel who understood that a concept must have all three >>> moments - universal, particular and individual. >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 15/10/2017 9:24 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: >>>> Dear Mike, >>>> Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an >>> activist for his concreteness and clarifications is >>> crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot >>> ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes , Parts , >>> and Moments. He personally provided us with examples from >>> Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they convert >>> Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced with the >>> same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most >>> valuable contribution) does not begin with the individual >>> case in isolation which phenomenologically speaking (in >>> contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for >>> appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not obtained >>> because one instance is considered detached from all >>> relations and its subservience to the service of the >>> Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is particular in >>> some feature/s. And these particulars are essential. With >>> other particulars in other individuals they are related >>> actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense , this whole >>> could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life itself. >>> Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is , >>> with category and concept only therefore , following Marx >>> and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again on his >>> feet (not that the firmament to that time did put "idea" >>> on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on their >>> heads but to put them again headstand thinking and acting >>> with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just >>> with their brains. Then taking all options in translation >>> even that of a Machine into consideration it does not seem >>> to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of >>> Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of >>> activities thereafter. These activities are those arising >>> from the properties of versatile objects in turn arising >>> from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile >>> needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think >>> Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual >>> activities as moments with the broadest idea of the >>> Monistic Substantial Modes or States in Philosophical >>> terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn integrate and >>> are dissolved into Monism of Substance. >>>> Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche >>> (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one >>> Substance) is already there with the organism actively and >>> spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own , >>> positioning its due object and moving along its contours >>> and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to itself >>> , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and >>> bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as >>> novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with >>> Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with a huge >>> gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of >>> consciousness , now apparently ascending to "wording" and >>> "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration) further >>> "communication" as something indispensable and necessary >>> and inevitable to the realization of life affairs. >>>> Best >>>> Haydi >>>> >>>> >>>> From: mike cole >> > >>>> To: Andy Blunden >> >; "eXtended Mind, Culture, >>> Activity" >> > >>>> Cc: Alexander Surmava >> >; ivan-dgf >>> >; Ivan >>> Uemlianin >; >>> Haydi Zulfei >> > >>>> Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50 >>>> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented >>> activity and communication >>>> Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.Could someone post >>> the Russian text next to the English so that it is >>> possible to compare it with the translation? I spent >>> several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of >>> Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally defeated >>> me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra rubles in >>> my pocket. >>>> Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us >>> a "true" translation. >>>> mike >>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden >>> > wrote: >>>> The Progress Publishers English translation of "Activity and >>>> Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of >>>> Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: >>>> >>>> Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, >>>> material life of the material subject. In the narrower >>>> sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a unit of >>>> life, mediated by mental reflection, by >>>> an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the >>>> subject in the objective world. >>>> >>>> In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The >>>> Development of Mind" we have: >>>> >>>> Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an >>>> organism?s activity; the different activities that realise >>>> its diverse vital relations with the surrounding reality are >>>> essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore >>>> differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively >>>> different] types of activity according to the difference in >>>> their objects. >>>> >>>> By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses >>>> "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has >>>> been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for >>>> English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean simply >>>> "category." The second does the same, but in addition makes >>>> it evident that the plural does not refer to different >>>> activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the >>>> possibility of forming a true concept of activity >>> altogether. >>>> With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is >>>> simply that "such an initial *category* can only be >>>> object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing >>>> that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, >>>> even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> ------------------------------ >>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics. >>> org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: >>>>> Dear Andy! >>>>> I am glad that our communication was resumed after many >>>>> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and files >>>>> and found that the problem of "object oriented activity OR >>>>> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before >>>>> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is serious and >>>>> it deserves to return to it today. >>>>> Last year I was close to being silent forever. >>>>> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed >>>>> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the >>>>> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my >>>>> theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my >>>>> descendants :-). >>>>> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not >>>>> understand your question. What means the distinction >>>>> between singular and plural number in your remark? Could >>>>> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the >>>>> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my >>>>> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, >>>>> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of >>>>> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my dissertation >>>>> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's "Theory of >>>>> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, >>>>> having understood the theoretic meaning of your claims to >>>>> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily >>>>> understand the essence of your objections to me. >>>>> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I >>>>> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a >>>>> particular empirical case of its manifestation. Therefore, >>>>> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just like >>>>> Matter, Nature, or Substance. >>>>> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come across >>>>> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its >>>>> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the >>>>> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old >>>>> philosophers and that only the numerous individual "atomic >>>>> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really >>>>> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar >>>>> positivism and empiricism. >>>>> However, all of this may not apply to your position ... >>>>> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. >>>>> Best wishes >>>>> Sasha >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden >>>>> > ?????(?): >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'll ask Sasha a question. >>>>> >>>>> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial >>>>> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it >>> stands, >>>>> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be >>> that you >>>>> are translating it from a Russian statement that is >>> correct. >>>>> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in when I >>>>> say "every activity has an object." But in your expression >>>>> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and >>> unless >>>>> you are a religious person is not something which can >>> have a >>>>> specific object. All English translations of A N Leontyev >>>>> make this mistake which has caused no end of confusion >>> among >>>>> English-speakers. >>>>> >>>>> Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," just as >>>>> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." >>>>> >>>>> Andy >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>> ------------------------------ >>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics. >>> org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>>>>> Dear Sasha, all, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding >>>>> response. I think you are right in your assertion that we >>>>> are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of >>>>> CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. However, one >>>>> can see in the lack of response by other members?? that >>>>> not everyone has the privilege of the time it requires to >>>>> go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing >>>>> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce and I >>>>> hope it is/will be appreciated as such. >>>>>> If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I quote >>>>> from your response: >>>>>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" >>>>>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework >>>>> according to which we are looking of the most original >>>>> germ cell, the one from which all others can be >>>>> developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I >>>>> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree on >>> that. >>>>>> But ??once we are back to the development of a concrete >>>>> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact that, for >>>>> any child to participate in human forms of object-oriented >>>>> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented >>>>> activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular >>>>> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into those >>>>> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category >>>>> devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with >>>>> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you describe, is >>>>> this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, or is >>>>> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? >>>>>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others answer >>>>> (which I hope some do). >>>>>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in >>>>> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of teaching >>>>> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this >>>>> is only possible through *involvement* in collective >>>>> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary >>>>> over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is >>>>> only possible in and through object-oriented activity). >>>>> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional aspect of >>>>> the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to >>>>> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this >>>>> object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all >>>>> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually >>>>> uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such >>>>> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get >>>>> collective activity without them? On this, and precisely >>>>> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of Man", >>>>> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in that >>>>> case that communication is included in activity and is its >>>>> essential component: without relation to another >>>>> person(s), activity is impossible' (144). Although I not >>>>> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I can't >>>>> see how he can be wrong. >>>>>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of >>>>> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the >>>>> category of object-oriented activity, is most primary. Let >>>>> me also note that ?there are other authors who have >>>>> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you >>>>> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on >>>>> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom >>>>> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of auto-affection' ( >>>>> https://www.amazon.com/ Incarnation-Philosophy- >>> Studies-Phenomenology- Existential/dp/0810131269 >>>>> ) >>>>>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I wonder >>>>> whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity >>>>> and communication. Is not the distinction just an artefact >>>>> of a partial understanding of what it means activity and >>>>> what it means communicating. I still feel that >>>>> communication, in the sense of addressivity that Mikhailov >>>>> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for >>>>> semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity >>>>> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't >>>>> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps >>>>> naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication >>>>> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in >>>>> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I >>>>> don't see how any practical activity can have any sense >>>>> (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. >>>>> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are >>>>> talking about; one machines could perform on their own >>>>> without consciousness. ? >>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>> >>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ______________________________ __ >>>>>> From: Alexander Surmava >> >>>>> > >>>>>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 >>>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> >>>>> >> edu>; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo >>>>> Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole >>>>>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >>>>> aside) :-) >>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>>>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>>>> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >>>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>>>> interesting only for us theoretical >>>>> verbiage>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ >>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> >>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>>>> Agitprop >>>>>> sticks >>>>>> in my teeth too, >>>>>> and I?d rather >>>>>> compose >>>>>> romances for you - >>>>>> more profit in it >>>>>> and more charm. >>>>>> But I >>>>>> subdued >>>>>> myself, >>>>>> setting my heel >>>>>> on the throat >>>>>> of my own song. >>>>>> Vladimir Mayakovski >>>>>> >>>>>> ? ??? >>>>>> ???????? >>>>>> ? ????? ?????, >>>>>> ? ??? ?? >>>>>> ???????? >>>>>> ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>>>> ???????? ??? >>>>>> ? ??????????. >>>>>> ?? ? >>>>>> ???? >>>>>> ??????, >>>>>> ????????? >>>>>> ?? ????? >>>>>> ??????????? ?????. >>>>>> ???????? ?????????? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >>>>> to the concrete. >>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >>>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>> ????????????>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% >>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . >>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>>>> English international journal... but for some strange >>>>> reason was not published then or later. >>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>> CONSCIOUSNESS. >>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>>>> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >>>>> return to this somehow later. >>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>>>> work of 1988: >>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>>>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >>> activity. >>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >>> relation.? >>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>>>> "addressing" to another person. >>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >>> Ilyenkov. >>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>>>> social relations.. " >>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>>>> solved by ourselves. >>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was AN >>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >>>>> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of >>>>> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was inclined to >>>>> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, >>>>> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" >>>>> were for communication. >>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>>>> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal >>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >>>>> rather indecent. >>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters >>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>>>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>>>> "communication" and "activity." >>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. >>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >>>>> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>>>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my >>>>> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a >>>>> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the >>>>> relation of objective activity and "communication". In the >>>>> same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, >>>>> the active relation of the subject to the object and to >>>>> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, >>>>> indeed, any other, psychology. >>>>>> ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????, >>>>> ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, >>>>> ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, >>>>> ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? >>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>> ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. >>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>>>> English text >>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>> and read it to the end :-). >>>>>> ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>> ????????????>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> >>>>>> ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? >>>>> ??????????? ???????? >>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ >>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% >>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% >>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% >>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% >>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% >>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 >>>>> . >>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >>>>> aside) :-) >>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>>>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>>>> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >>>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>>>> interesting only for us theoretical >>>>> verbiage>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ >>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> >>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>>>> Agitprop >>>>>> sticks >>>>>> in my teeth too, >>>>>> and I?d rather >>>>>> compose >>>>>> romances for you - >>>>>> more profit in it >>>>>> and more charm. >>>>>> But I >>>>>> subdued >>>>>> myself, >>>>>> setting my heel >>>>>> on the throat >>>>>> of my own song. >>>>>> Vladimir Mayakovski >>>>>> >>>>>> ? ??? >>>>>> ???????? >>>>>> ? ????? ?????, >>>>>> ? ??? ?? >>>>>> ???????? >>>>>> ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>>>> ???????? ??? >>>>>> ? ??????????. >>>>>> ?? ? >>>>>> ???? >>>>>> ??????, >>>>>> ????????? >>>>>> ?? ????? >>>>>> ??????????? ?????. >>>>>> ???????? ?????????? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >>>>> to the concrete. >>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >>>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>> ????????????>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% >>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . >>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>>>> English international journal... but for some strange >>>>> reason was not published then or later. >>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>> CONSCIOUSNESS. >>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>>>> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >>>>> return to this somehow later. >>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>>>> work of 1988: >>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>>>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >>> activity. >>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >>> relation.? >>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>>>> "addressing" to another person. >>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >>> Ilyenkov. >>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>>>> social relations.. " >>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>>>> solved by ourselves. >>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was >>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >>>>> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas >>>>> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was >>>>> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other >>>>> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas >>>>> "Leningraders" were for "communication". >>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>>>> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a literal >>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >>>>> rather indecent. >>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters >>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>>>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>>>> "communication" and "activity." >>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>> object oriented activity, which is an attribute property >>>>> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, >>>>> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we >>>>> will never get life or object oriented activity even with >>>>> the greatest diligence. >>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >>>>> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>>>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my diploma >>>>> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist >>>>> theoretical solution to the question of the relation of >>>>> objective activity and "communication". In the same time, >>>>> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active >>>>> relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is >>>>> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, >>>>> any other, psychology. >>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>>>> English text >>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>> and read it to the end :-). >>>>>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>> ????????????>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> >>>>>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short >>>>> English one >>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ >>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% >>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% >>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% >>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% >>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% >>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. >>>>>> Sasha >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> From ablunden@mira.net Mon Oct 16 05:22:41 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 23:22:41 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> Message-ID: <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> Just to illustrate that I am being an orthodox Marxist here, from Chapter 10, Vol. 3 of Capital: "In the case of capitals of average, or approximately average, composition, the price of production is thus the same or almost the same as the value, and the profit the same as the surplus-value produced by them. All other capitals, of whatever composition, tend toward this average under pressure of competition. But since the capitals of average composition are of the same, or approximately the same, structure as the average social capital, all capitals have the tendency, regardless of the surplus-value produced by them, to realize the average profit, rather than their own surplus-value in the price of their commodity, i.e., to realize the prices of production." Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 16/10/2017 11:18 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > No, Alfredo. A unit of capital is a firm (or company). It is > impossible to explain the formation of a rate of profit (at > least as Marx does in /Capital/) without the conception of > units of capital, namely, firms and the competition between > them. Firms are of course, what Engestrom would call a > "system of activity" or I would call a "project" and > Leontyev almost could call an activity. But in the USSR > there were no firms, only the state. It is perhaps A N > Leonytev's greatest discovery that there are both micro and > molar units in any complex process. True in Psychology and > true in political economy. Whereas exchange of commodities > is an artefact-mediated action, a firm is an activity, a > specific aggregate of actions, directed towards the > quantitative maximisation of the value of the unit of capital. > > English is not a perfect language either. : ) The word > "consciousness" has the unfortunate connotation of being a > mass noun (or continuous substance) whereas it is know only, > of course, in individual "consciousnesses" or "minds." But > it sounds so clumsy to say "a consciousness." > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 16/10/2017 11:07 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >> Haydi, >> >> I think Andy does not mean 'one capital' versus 'several capitals', for, if I read Andy adequately, Capital is for him not a unit but rather the whole of which commodity exchange is the unit. Thus, the germ cell of Capital is thus not Capital, or 'a' Capital, which you seem to attribute to Andy; just as I don't think he is arguing that there is consciousness, and then many consciousnesses. So it may be that you two agree more than disagree, judging by your last paragraph. >> >> Whether his position on singular and plurals is more or less adequate than another positions, that I leave it up to the discussion. >> >> Alfredo >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? >> Sent: 16 October 2017 09:45 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Andy Blunden >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >> >> Thank you David for your explanation! Though for me it needs more than one read. >> >> The point was whether use of activity and activities in Leontiev is a contradiction. Whoever L was and whatever he believed in , he was not so negligent to the point of posing activity first and immediately after that recounting 'activities'. Translation ruled out a committed error. Then such a blundering display must have a justification rather than a misunderstanding in comprehension. >> >> In one sense all things are related. The more so with the Monistic View. We have so many corporate and incorporate things , two of them so problematic communication and practical activity since Descartes and we are determined to avoid Dualism and refer and return all phenomena to that same thing , the one substance. In the actuality of the world , there's nothing discrete , that is , absolutely unrelated. Is that pretext for us not to see this unbounded versatility and hues and dues as distinct coloring? Maybe one of the ways was for man to let Nature go unrestrained?? But man also did not come of its own will. >> >> The sole way destined or open to Man was of its Nature to engage with the surrounding. To deal with it sensually and subjectively/agently. Then Man in one time interpreted all phenomena as they appeared to him. But he grew up further than his infantile period. He learnt to delve into matters , go deeper and deeper. With one spectacle (plane) he observed how that single substance let its attributes multiply themselves into different shapes and colors and Modes. With another plane of the one spectacle observed the variation of the Modes themselves. I mean Ontology and Epistemology not yet separate from each other as I used a pair of planes for that matter. >> >> Then we usually don't use a nail-clipper for alterations and manipulations in Genes. Or devices for Genes for our feeding and nutrition. It is then within these constraints that corporate and incorporate phenomena differ. Singles and plurals differ. Discrete and the indivisible differ. Parts and Moments differ. Wholes and mere entities differ. A process and a product resulting from that process differ. No justification to interchange them because of the use of A in front of them. >> >> I wonder if this is true for others too. For me it's difficult to accept to say "this capital that capital" "those 8 capitals united" "capitals of the world dissolved into unanimity". If I'm correct in this , it's , I think , because Capital is a Whole , coming out of a long process of functions and disfunctions , moments of circulations and transient stagnation , booms and boosts and drawbacks and failures. The moment of its conception in the exchange of commodities up to the discovery of the private appropriation of the surplus value to the point of harnessing every means to penetrate each tight corner of the big World. >> >> Best >> Haydi >> >> >> From: David Kellogg >> To: Andy Blunden ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> Sent: Monday, 16 October 2017, 2:21:12 >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >> >> Of course, neither an object nor a process is discrete (or even, as Andy >> says, "discreet"). Who can tell me where a mountain river ends and the >> alluvial plain begins? Certainly not Cezanne or the phenomenologists who so >> loved him. Yet a mountain is most assuredly an object, just as surely >> as climbing the mountain to ascertain its degree of montagnitude is a >> process. >> >> This last week I've been struggling through the "Curriculum Reforms" >> wrought by three right wing governments in Norway, Finland, and New >> Zealand. Like Catalonia, these are all countries where unpopular coalitions >> of right parties are replacing a much more popular but obviously >> unsuccessful social democratic coalition of left parties. In Norway and in >> Finland, the coalition actually includes the far right, neo-fascist, >> anti-immigrant parties, and in New Zealand it includes the ACT, that is, an >> "association of consumers and taxpayers" whose main interest is cutting >> education budgets, starting by making teachers and students fight each >> other for scarce resources in the form of "block grants". >> >> Now, all of these governments are more or less bound by something called >> DeSeCo, which is short for Describe and Select Competences. This is because >> right-wing ideology sees education not as a public good but as a commodity, >> to be judged by tangible results and priced accordingly. This presents a >> real theoretical problem for right-wingers, because they ALSO see that >> "flexible labor markets" and "entrepreneurial spirit" means that there >> isn't any way of deciding on what skills or even what knowledge the >> "economy of the future" will demand. >> >> We can see this in the emphasis on "competence". Competence is not a thing >> or a process, and it is neither discrete nor discreet. Of course, if you >> are a linguist, competence is something Chomsky thought of in the sixties, >> an abstract form of knowledge in a hypothetical native speaker-hearer in an >> imaginary homogenous speech community. It is "discrete" in the sense of >> being nowhere and nowhen connectible to performance in any way. It is >> therefore "discreet" in the sense of being untestable--as soon as you test >> it, you have a form of performance, not competence. It's like standing in >> front of a classroom with a picture of a guy swimming and trying to teach >> the expression "i can swim". What you have in the picture is not "I can >> swim"; it's manifestly "he is swimming". >> >> But in DeSeCo, you get these lists of competences, which are set up as if >> they were discrete so you can list them on a Powerpoint slide and sell them >> to ministries of education. And the real selling point is that, on the one >> hand, because they are all "meta-skills" and "meta-knowledges", they don't >> have any practical outcome or real commitment to a job and a livelihood. >> And on the other, they sound terribly powerful when you phrase them as >> "learning to learn" or "transversal competence" or "meta-cognitive skills" >> or something like that. Jobs, in other words, are discretionary. After >> centuries of promising jobs and livelhood in return for school and boredom, >> the Western economies have decided that sticks are cheaper than carrots, >> and the thing to do is simply to rule people who don't have educational >> certificates out of the job market rather than try to provide >> actual know-how and factual know-that. >> >> Here are my four favorites (i.e. the four that we stress in our own >> curricular reform here in South Korea): >> >> interpersonal competence (sociability, the ability to 'be alone with >> others' as Hughlings Jackson put it) >> cultural competence (enculturation, the ability to understand traditions, >> mores, and norms) >> creative competence (intelligence, innovation, yadda yadda) >> individual competence (the ability to dress yourself, feed yourself, and >> show up for an interview where you will not be offered a job) >> >> Vygotsky, as usual, has a better idea--it's a mountain. We just turn the >> DeSeCO PPT upside down. Then we add each competence---freedom, creative >> intelligence, encultured habits and tastes, and instiinctive >> sociability--as a superstructure erected on the basis of the previous one: >> >> free will (the ability to make choices that are not necessarily intelligent >> or habitual or instinctive) >> intelligence (the ability to make choices that are not habitual or >> instinctive but nevertheless adaptive) >> enculturation (the ability to make choices that are not instinctive but >> conform to the choices that have proven successful in the now socialized >> environment) >> instinct (the ability to make choices that are responsive to the >> environment and which conform to the choices that have proven successful in >> phylogenesis) >> >> Are theses objects? Of course, if we say so. And processes? Well, how else >> could they have come about? What they are not, however, is either >> "discrete" or "discreet": they are clearly linked to each other, and they >> are all linked, through the lower layer, to adaptations ot the environment. >> >> And there's the rub--where the rubber meets the road. The real question, >> for our teachers and for our children, is about what will happen to them >> now that these competences can no longer be redeemed in jobs. Will the >> anti-Faustian bargain of exchanging your youth for a >> stable middle-aged livelihood survive? >> >> David Kellogg >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >>> Haydi, you say "AN activity is not a thing ; it's a >>> process." I wonder then what is a thing which is not also a >>> process? (I interpret "thing" as meaning "something >>> discrete," otherwise your objection makes no sense.) The >>> point is that Hegel does not make this dichotomy - every >>> thing is also a process and vice versa. That a process is >>> also discreet is important because it is only thanks to its >>> discreteness that we can cognise the process and in fact >>> only thanks to its discreteness that a process can affect >>> anything else. To speak of processes which are not also >>> discrete is to speak in abstractions. >>> >>> On this point, when Hegel puts ideas above matter, it has to >>> be realised that for Hegel "ideas" are social practices - he >>> is simply place human practice at the centre of human life >>> and its comprehension, rather than the mechanical and >>> chemical processes of Nature. If you think that "ideas" are >>> simply chimera inside our heads, then, of course, Hegel's >>> idealism seems like madness. >>> >>> Yes, all the Marxists have blasted Hegel. As they must. >>> Otherwise they must end up advocates of Constitutional >>> Monarchy. But while Marx uses almost every mention he makes >>> of Hegel to criticise him, often in extreme terms, it can go >>> unnoticed the extent to which in practice Marx follows Hegel >>> in philosophy. Of course Marx is not equal to Hegel, but >>> simple formulae do not contribute to understanding the relation. >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 15/10/2017 6:51 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: >>>> Andy, >>>> >>>> Let me first apologize to David Kellog because in others' >>>> wandering and perplexity it was he who in his reading of >>>> Gramsci's prison letters came across this point and made >>>> you not only accept the inappropriateness of Hegel's >>>> headstand as Crowning every worldly affair deriving from >>>> the People's Heads "Idea" , "Absolute" but also >>>> intensifying this point with more examples and references >>>> from Engels' "utopian versus genuine socialism" on your >>>> part. Of course you've been helping us on many occasions >>>> and you're very welcome for this nothing to be denied. >>>> >>>> At this point we have no problem with translation. >>>> Leontiev meant it. >>>> >>>> Suppose that ANL does not know "individual" which is very >>>> ambiguous because in what then one should seek the >>>> embodiment of the "particular" and if one takes the very >>>> particular as individual , then everything gets mixed up . >>>> Then what about you who stick firmly on individual >>>> discrete detached activities as an objection to Sasha's >>>> sole ACTIVITY as theoretical understanding. >>>> >>>> As you well know even AN activity is not a thing ; it's a >>>> process. And you once distinguished between GENERAL WORK >>>> ACTIVITY and LABOUR ACTIVITY or VALORIZATION ACTIVITY >>>> which was quite right and timely though you recently gave >>>> differing definitions in no way harmonious to your >>>> previous definitions. But the main problem is blending >>>> clarity in expression with concrete in theory. No doubt >>>> you're a Fan of Hegel. I should repeat myself : Hegel is a >>>> hero of theoretical concepts. In theorizing , and for him >>>> to explicate the Essence of Phenomena , he begins with >>>> apparently concrete things as ABSTRACTS finally reaches >>>> CONCRETE UNIVERSALS as concepts. And here we again very >>>> surprisingly see you put your finger upon what you should >>>> have known in person is contrary to your own erudition. >>>> Turning Hegel down as believing in discrete abstracts. >>>> >>>> And now to his son's comment : What individual are you >>>> pursuing? Your Hegel sees phenomena in their relations. >>>> According to him and also according to ANL ACTIVITY as a >>>> unit of Life is Molar non-additive. He even does not see >>>> operations as single acts. It's a matter of the angle of >>>> vision not detachment and concreteness. If his son had >>>> talked of concreteness in moments of activity , then you >>>> were right in your objections and oppositions. You please >>>> give us your last definition of activity here (not in >>>> lengthy references) so that we can have a discerning >>>> option. >>>> So far to remove the problem we should accept operations >>>> are separately and independently carried out ; actions in >>>> their own are carried out ; activities are carried out >>>> arbitrarily. And these are done to the realization of man >>>> as the ensemble of social relations based on some >>>> infrastructure. >>>> >>>> Hegel's metaphor has been thrown back at him by Marx , >>>> Engels , Lenin , Vygotsky , Ilyenko , and many others. If >>>> you like to stand above all Giants of Marxism , it's >>>> something perfectly and absolutely Personal as you're >>>> speaking out loud! Then why give us so many references. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Haydi >>>> >>>> P.S. Alfredo! Though you have my previous private response >>>> concerning the matters you pose I see myself accountable >>>> to rewrite them to the Public. Thanks! >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> *From:* Andy Blunden >>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> *Sent:* Sunday, 15 October 2017, 5:35:40 >>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity >>>> and communication >>>> >>>> Haydi, partly the problem with ANL's >>>> philosophy-as-we-know-it is simply a product of its >>>> translation into English. But partly it is also in his >>>> philosophy. As Victor Kaptelinin first pointed out (so far >>>> as I know), ANL knows the universal and the particular but >>>> he does not know the individual. And his son's comment that >>>> ANL did not conceive of Activity as being discrete proves >>>> this to be the case. Thus his concept of Activity is not a >>>> fully concrete concept. And this is not a product of >>>> translation. >>>> >>>> As David Kellogg has kindly pointed out to me, it was Hegel >>>> who actually first introduced this metaphor of people >>>> "walking (or standing) on their heads." Personally, I don't >>>> think it has ever helped anyone understand the defect of >>>> Hegel's philosophy to throw this metaphor back at him. As >>>> demonstrated in this issue (the concept of activity) it was >>>> Hegel who understood that a concept must have all three >>>> moments - universal, particular and individual. >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> On 15/10/2017 9:24 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: >>>>> Dear Mike, >>>>> Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an >>>> activist for his concreteness and clarifications is >>>> crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot >>>> ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes , Parts , >>>> and Moments. He personally provided us with examples from >>>> Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they convert >>>> Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced with the >>>> same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most >>>> valuable contribution) does not begin with the individual >>>> case in isolation which phenomenologically speaking (in >>>> contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for >>>> appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not obtained >>>> because one instance is considered detached from all >>>> relations and its subservience to the service of the >>>> Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is particular in >>>> some feature/s. And these particulars are essential. With >>>> other particulars in other individuals they are related >>>> actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense , this whole >>>> could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life itself. >>>> Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is , >>>> with category and concept only therefore , following Marx >>>> and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again on his >>>> feet (not that the firmament to that time did put "idea" >>>> on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on their >>>> heads but to put them again headstand thinking and acting >>>> with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just >>>> with their brains. Then taking all options in translation >>>> even that of a Machine into consideration it does not seem >>>> to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of >>>> Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of >>>> activities thereafter. These activities are those arising >>>> from the properties of versatile objects in turn arising >>>> from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile >>>> needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think >>>> Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual >>>> activities as moments with the broadest idea of the >>>> Monistic Substantial Modes or States in Philosophical >>>> terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn integrate and >>>> are dissolved into Monism of Substance. >>>>> Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche >>>> (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one >>>> Substance) is already there with the organism actively and >>>> spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own , >>>> positioning its due object and moving along its contours >>>> and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to itself >>>> , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and >>>> bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as >>>> novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with >>>> Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with a huge >>>> gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of >>>> consciousness , now apparently ascending to "wording" and >>>> "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration) further >>>> "communication" as something indispensable and necessary >>>> and inevitable to the realization of life affairs. >>>>> Best >>>>> Haydi >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: mike cole >>> > >>>>> To: Andy Blunden >>> >; "eXtended Mind, Culture, >>>> Activity" >>> > >>>>> Cc: Alexander Surmava >>> >; ivan-dgf >>>> >; Ivan >>>> Uemlianin >; >>>> Haydi Zulfei >>> > >>>>> Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50 >>>>> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented >>>> activity and communication >>>>> Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.Could someone post >>>> the Russian text next to the English so that it is >>>> possible to compare it with the translation? I spent >>>> several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of >>>> Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally defeated >>>> me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra rubles in >>>> my pocket. >>>>> Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us >>>> a "true" translation. >>>>> mike >>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden >>>> > wrote: >>>>> The Progress Publishers English translation of "Activity and >>>>> Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of >>>>> Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: >>>>> >>>>> Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, >>>>> material life of the material subject. In the narrower >>>>> sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a unit of >>>>> life, mediated by mental reflection, by >>>>> an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the >>>>> subject in the objective world. >>>>> >>>>> In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The >>>>> Development of Mind" we have: >>>>> >>>>> Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an >>>>> organism?s activity; the different activities that realise >>>>> its diverse vital relations with the surrounding reality are >>>>> essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore >>>>> differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively >>>>> different] types of activity according to the difference in >>>>> their objects. >>>>> >>>>> By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses >>>>> "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has >>>>> been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for >>>>> English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean simply >>>>> "category." The second does the same, but in addition makes >>>>> it evident that the plural does not refer to different >>>>> activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the >>>>> possibility of forming a true concept of activity >>>> altogether. >>>>> With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is >>>>> simply that "such an initial *category* can only be >>>>> object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing >>>>> that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, >>>>> even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. >>>>> >>>>> Andy >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics. >>>> org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>> On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: >>>>>> Dear Andy! >>>>>> I am glad that our communication was resumed after many >>>>>> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and files >>>>>> and found that the problem of "object oriented activity OR >>>>>> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before >>>>>> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is serious and >>>>>> it deserves to return to it today. >>>>>> Last year I was close to being silent forever. >>>>>> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed >>>>>> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the >>>>>> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my >>>>>> theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my >>>>>> descendants :-). >>>>>> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not >>>>>> understand your question. What means the distinction >>>>>> between singular and plural number in your remark? Could >>>>>> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the >>>>>> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my >>>>>> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, >>>>>> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of >>>>>> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my dissertation >>>>>> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's "Theory of >>>>>> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, >>>>>> having understood the theoretic meaning of your claims to >>>>>> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily >>>>>> understand the essence of your objections to me. >>>>>> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I >>>>>> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a >>>>>> particular empirical case of its manifestation. Therefore, >>>>>> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just like >>>>>> Matter, Nature, or Substance. >>>>>> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come across >>>>>> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its >>>>>> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the >>>>>> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old >>>>>> philosophers and that only the numerous individual "atomic >>>>>> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really >>>>>> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar >>>>>> positivism and empiricism. >>>>>> However, all of this may not apply to your position ... >>>>>> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. >>>>>> Best wishes >>>>>> Sasha >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden >>>>>> > ?????(?): >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll ask Sasha a question. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial >>>>>> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it >>>> stands, >>>>>> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be >>>> that you >>>>>> are translating it from a Russian statement that is >>>> correct. >>>>>> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in when I >>>>>> say "every activity has an object." But in your expression >>>>>> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and >>>> unless >>>>>> you are a religious person is not something which can >>>> have a >>>>>> specific object. All English translations of A N Leontyev >>>>>> make this mistake which has caused no end of confusion >>>> among >>>>>> English-speakers. >>>>>> >>>>>> Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," just as >>>>>> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." >>>>>> >>>>>> Andy >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics. >>>> org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>>>>>> Dear Sasha, all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding >>>>>> response. I think you are right in your assertion that we >>>>>> are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of >>>>>> CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. However, one >>>>>> can see in the lack of response by other members?? that >>>>>> not everyone has the privilege of the time it requires to >>>>>> go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing >>>>>> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce and I >>>>>> hope it is/will be appreciated as such. >>>>>>> If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I quote >>>>>> from your response: >>>>>>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" >>>>>>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework >>>>>> according to which we are looking of the most original >>>>>> germ cell, the one from which all others can be >>>>>> developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I >>>>>> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree on >>>> that. >>>>>>> But ??once we are back to the development of a concrete >>>>>> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact that, for >>>>>> any child to participate in human forms of object-oriented >>>>>> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented >>>>>> activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular >>>>>> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into those >>>>>> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category >>>>>> devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with >>>>>> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you describe, is >>>>>> this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, or is >>>>>> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? >>>>>>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others answer >>>>>> (which I hope some do). >>>>>>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in >>>>>> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of teaching >>>>>> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this >>>>>> is only possible through *involvement* in collective >>>>>> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary >>>>>> over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is >>>>>> only possible in and through object-oriented activity). >>>>>> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional aspect of >>>>>> the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to >>>>>> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this >>>>>> object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all >>>>>> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually >>>>>> uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such >>>>>> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get >>>>>> collective activity without them? On this, and precisely >>>>>> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of Man", >>>>>> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in that >>>>>> case that communication is included in activity and is its >>>>>> essential component: without relation to another >>>>>> person(s), activity is impossible' (144). Although I not >>>>>> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I can't >>>>>> see how he can be wrong. >>>>>>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of >>>>>> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the >>>>>> category of object-oriented activity, is most primary. Let >>>>>> me also note that ?there are other authors who have >>>>>> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you >>>>>> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on >>>>>> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom >>>>>> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of auto-affection' ( >>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/ Incarnation-Philosophy- >>>> Studies-Phenomenology- Existential/dp/0810131269 >>>>>> ) >>>>>>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I wonder >>>>>> whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity >>>>>> and communication. Is not the distinction just an artefact >>>>>> of a partial understanding of what it means activity and >>>>>> what it means communicating. I still feel that >>>>>> communication, in the sense of addressivity that Mikhailov >>>>>> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for >>>>>> semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity >>>>>> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't >>>>>> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps >>>>>> naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication >>>>>> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in >>>>>> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I >>>>>> don't see how any practical activity can have any sense >>>>>> (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. >>>>>> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are >>>>>> talking about; one machines could perform on their own >>>>>> without consciousness. ? >>>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ______________________________ __ >>>>>>> From: Alexander Surmava >>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 >>>>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> >>>>>> >>> edu>; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo >>>>>> Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole >>>>>>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >>>>>> aside) :-) >>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>>>>> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >>>>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical >>>>>> verbiage>>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ >>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> >>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>>>>> Agitprop >>>>>>> sticks >>>>>>> in my teeth too, >>>>>>> and I?d rather >>>>>>> compose >>>>>>> romances for you - >>>>>>> more profit in it >>>>>>> and more charm. >>>>>>> But I >>>>>>> subdued >>>>>>> myself, >>>>>>> setting my heel >>>>>>> on the throat >>>>>>> of my own song. >>>>>>> Vladimir Mayakovski >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? ??? >>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>> ? ????? ?????, >>>>>>> ? ??? ?? >>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>> ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>>>>> ???????? ??? >>>>>>> ? ??????????. >>>>>>> ?? ? >>>>>>> ???? >>>>>>> ??????, >>>>>>> ????????? >>>>>>> ?? ????? >>>>>>> ??????????? ?????. >>>>>>> ???????? ?????????? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >>>>>> to the concrete. >>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >>>>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>> ????????????>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% >>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . >>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange >>>>>> reason was not published then or later. >>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. >>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >>>>>> return to this somehow later. >>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>>>>> work of 1988: >>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >>>> activity. >>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >>>> relation.? >>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>>>>> "addressing" to another person. >>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >>>> Ilyenkov. >>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>>>>> social relations.. " >>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>>>>> solved by ourselves. >>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was AN >>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >>>>>> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of >>>>>> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was inclined to >>>>>> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, >>>>>> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" >>>>>> were for communication. >>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>>>>> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal >>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >>>>>> rather indecent. >>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>>>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters >>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>>>>> "communication" and "activity." >>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. >>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my >>>>>> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a >>>>>> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the >>>>>> relation of objective activity and "communication". In the >>>>>> same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, >>>>>> the active relation of the subject to the object and to >>>>>> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, >>>>>> indeed, any other, psychology. >>>>>>> ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????, >>>>>> ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, >>>>>> ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, >>>>>> ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? >>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>> ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. >>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>>>>> English text >>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>> and read it to the end :-). >>>>>>> ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>> ????????????>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> >>>>>>> ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? >>>>>> ??????????? ???????? >>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ >>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% >>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% >>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% >>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% >>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% >>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 >>>>>> . >>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >>>>>> aside) :-) >>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>>>>> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >>>>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical >>>>>> verbiage>>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ >>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> >>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>>>>> Agitprop >>>>>>> sticks >>>>>>> in my teeth too, >>>>>>> and I?d rather >>>>>>> compose >>>>>>> romances for you - >>>>>>> more profit in it >>>>>>> and more charm. >>>>>>> But I >>>>>>> subdued >>>>>>> myself, >>>>>>> setting my heel >>>>>>> on the throat >>>>>>> of my own song. >>>>>>> Vladimir Mayakovski >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? ??? >>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>> ? ????? ?????, >>>>>>> ? ??? ?? >>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>> ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>>>>> ???????? ??? >>>>>>> ? ??????????. >>>>>>> ?? ? >>>>>>> ???? >>>>>>> ??????, >>>>>>> ????????? >>>>>>> ?? ????? >>>>>>> ??????????? ?????. >>>>>>> ???????? ?????????? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >>>>>> to the concrete. >>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >>>>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>> ????????????>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% >>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . >>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange >>>>>> reason was not published then or later. >>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. >>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >>>>>> return to this somehow later. >>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>>>>> work of 1988: >>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >>>> activity. >>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >>>> relation.? >>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>>>>> "addressing" to another person. >>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >>>> Ilyenkov. >>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>>>>> social relations.. " >>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>>>>> solved by ourselves. >>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was >>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >>>>>> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas >>>>>> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was >>>>>> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other >>>>>> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas >>>>>> "Leningraders" were for "communication". >>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>>>>> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a literal >>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >>>>>> rather indecent. >>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>>>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters >>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>>>>> "communication" and "activity." >>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>> object oriented activity, which is an attribute property >>>>>> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, >>>>>> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we >>>>>> will never get life or object oriented activity even with >>>>>> the greatest diligence. >>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my diploma >>>>>> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist >>>>>> theoretical solution to the question of the relation of >>>>>> objective activity and "communication". In the same time, >>>>>> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active >>>>>> relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is >>>>>> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, >>>>>> any other, psychology. >>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>>>>> English text >>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>> and read it to the end :-). >>>>>>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>> ????????????>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> >>>>>>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short >>>>>> English one >>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ >>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% >>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% >>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% >>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% >>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% >>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. >>>>>>> Sasha >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > > From ulvi.icil@gmail.com Mon Oct 16 05:26:28 2017 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 15:26:28 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Help for Estonian please Message-ID: Any friend in Tallinn or who knows Estonian and can help to find communication information of writers Ain Kaalep Ly Seppel please. Thanks. Ulvi From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Mon Oct 16 05:31:36 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 12:31:36 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net>, <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> Message-ID: <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> Damn! Commodity exchange is the unit of burgeons society... I have to study more! Thanks Andy "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as ?an immense accumulation of commodities,?[1] its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity" Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: 16 October 2017 14:22 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Just to illustrate that I am being an orthodox Marxist here, from Chapter 10, Vol. 3 of Capital: "In the case of capitals of average, or approximately average, composition, the price of production is thus the same or almost the same as the value, and the profit the same as the surplus-value produced by them. All other capitals, of whatever composition, tend toward this average under pressure of competition. But since the capitals of average composition are of the same, or approximately the same, structure as the average social capital, all capitals have the tendency, regardless of the surplus-value produced by them, to realize the average profit, rather than their own surplus-value in the price of their commodity, i.e., to realize the prices of production." Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 16/10/2017 11:18 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > No, Alfredo. A unit of capital is a firm (or company). It is > impossible to explain the formation of a rate of profit (at > least as Marx does in /Capital/) without the conception of > units of capital, namely, firms and the competition between > them. Firms are of course, what Engestrom would call a > "system of activity" or I would call a "project" and > Leontyev almost could call an activity. But in the USSR > there were no firms, only the state. It is perhaps A N > Leonytev's greatest discovery that there are both micro and > molar units in any complex process. True in Psychology and > true in political economy. Whereas exchange of commodities > is an artefact-mediated action, a firm is an activity, a > specific aggregate of actions, directed towards the > quantitative maximisation of the value of the unit of capital. > > English is not a perfect language either. : ) The word > "consciousness" has the unfortunate connotation of being a > mass noun (or continuous substance) whereas it is know only, > of course, in individual "consciousnesses" or "minds." But > it sounds so clumsy to say "a consciousness." > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 16/10/2017 11:07 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >> Haydi, >> >> I think Andy does not mean 'one capital' versus 'several capitals', for, if I read Andy adequately, Capital is for him not a unit but rather the whole of which commodity exchange is the unit. Thus, the germ cell of Capital is thus not Capital, or 'a' Capital, which you seem to attribute to Andy; just as I don't think he is arguing that there is consciousness, and then many consciousnesses. So it may be that you two agree more than disagree, judging by your last paragraph. >> >> Whether his position on singular and plurals is more or less adequate than another positions, that I leave it up to the discussion. >> >> Alfredo >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? >> Sent: 16 October 2017 09:45 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Andy Blunden >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >> >> Thank you David for your explanation! Though for me it needs more than one read. >> >> The point was whether use of activity and activities in Leontiev is a contradiction. Whoever L was and whatever he believed in , he was not so negligent to the point of posing activity first and immediately after that recounting 'activities'. Translation ruled out a committed error. Then such a blundering display must have a justification rather than a misunderstanding in comprehension. >> >> In one sense all things are related. The more so with the Monistic View. We have so many corporate and incorporate things , two of them so problematic communication and practical activity since Descartes and we are determined to avoid Dualism and refer and return all phenomena to that same thing , the one substance. In the actuality of the world , there's nothing discrete , that is , absolutely unrelated. Is that pretext for us not to see this unbounded versatility and hues and dues as distinct coloring? Maybe one of the ways was for man to let Nature go unrestrained?? But man also did not come of its own will. >> >> The sole way destined or open to Man was of its Nature to engage with the surrounding. To deal with it sensually and subjectively/agently. Then Man in one time interpreted all phenomena as they appeared to him. But he grew up further than his infantile period. He learnt to delve into matters , go deeper and deeper. With one spectacle (plane) he observed how that single substance let its attributes multiply themselves into different shapes and colors and Modes. With another plane of the one spectacle observed the variation of the Modes themselves. I mean Ontology and Epistemology not yet separate from each other as I used a pair of planes for that matter. >> >> Then we usually don't use a nail-clipper for alterations and manipulations in Genes. Or devices for Genes for our feeding and nutrition. It is then within these constraints that corporate and incorporate phenomena differ. Singles and plurals differ. Discrete and the indivisible differ. Parts and Moments differ. Wholes and mere entities differ. A process and a product resulting from that process differ. No justification to interchange them because of the use of A in front of them. >> >> I wonder if this is true for others too. For me it's difficult to accept to say "this capital that capital" "those 8 capitals united" "capitals of the world dissolved into unanimity". If I'm correct in this , it's , I think , because Capital is a Whole , coming out of a long process of functions and disfunctions , moments of circulations and transient stagnation , booms and boosts and drawbacks and failures. The moment of its conception in the exchange of commodities up to the discovery of the private appropriation of the surplus value to the point of harnessing every means to penetrate each tight corner of the big World. >> >> Best >> Haydi >> >> >> From: David Kellogg >> To: Andy Blunden ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> Sent: Monday, 16 October 2017, 2:21:12 >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >> >> Of course, neither an object nor a process is discrete (or even, as Andy >> says, "discreet"). Who can tell me where a mountain river ends and the >> alluvial plain begins? Certainly not Cezanne or the phenomenologists who so >> loved him. Yet a mountain is most assuredly an object, just as surely >> as climbing the mountain to ascertain its degree of montagnitude is a >> process. >> >> This last week I've been struggling through the "Curriculum Reforms" >> wrought by three right wing governments in Norway, Finland, and New >> Zealand. Like Catalonia, these are all countries where unpopular coalitions >> of right parties are replacing a much more popular but obviously >> unsuccessful social democratic coalition of left parties. In Norway and in >> Finland, the coalition actually includes the far right, neo-fascist, >> anti-immigrant parties, and in New Zealand it includes the ACT, that is, an >> "association of consumers and taxpayers" whose main interest is cutting >> education budgets, starting by making teachers and students fight each >> other for scarce resources in the form of "block grants". >> >> Now, all of these governments are more or less bound by something called >> DeSeCo, which is short for Describe and Select Competences. This is because >> right-wing ideology sees education not as a public good but as a commodity, >> to be judged by tangible results and priced accordingly. This presents a >> real theoretical problem for right-wingers, because they ALSO see that >> "flexible labor markets" and "entrepreneurial spirit" means that there >> isn't any way of deciding on what skills or even what knowledge the >> "economy of the future" will demand. >> >> We can see this in the emphasis on "competence". Competence is not a thing >> or a process, and it is neither discrete nor discreet. Of course, if you >> are a linguist, competence is something Chomsky thought of in the sixties, >> an abstract form of knowledge in a hypothetical native speaker-hearer in an >> imaginary homogenous speech community. It is "discrete" in the sense of >> being nowhere and nowhen connectible to performance in any way. It is >> therefore "discreet" in the sense of being untestable--as soon as you test >> it, you have a form of performance, not competence. It's like standing in >> front of a classroom with a picture of a guy swimming and trying to teach >> the expression "i can swim". What you have in the picture is not "I can >> swim"; it's manifestly "he is swimming". >> >> But in DeSeCo, you get these lists of competences, which are set up as if >> they were discrete so you can list them on a Powerpoint slide and sell them >> to ministries of education. And the real selling point is that, on the one >> hand, because they are all "meta-skills" and "meta-knowledges", they don't >> have any practical outcome or real commitment to a job and a livelihood. >> And on the other, they sound terribly powerful when you phrase them as >> "learning to learn" or "transversal competence" or "meta-cognitive skills" >> or something like that. Jobs, in other words, are discretionary. After >> centuries of promising jobs and livelhood in return for school and boredom, >> the Western economies have decided that sticks are cheaper than carrots, >> and the thing to do is simply to rule people who don't have educational >> certificates out of the job market rather than try to provide >> actual know-how and factual know-that. >> >> Here are my four favorites (i.e. the four that we stress in our own >> curricular reform here in South Korea): >> >> interpersonal competence (sociability, the ability to 'be alone with >> others' as Hughlings Jackson put it) >> cultural competence (enculturation, the ability to understand traditions, >> mores, and norms) >> creative competence (intelligence, innovation, yadda yadda) >> individual competence (the ability to dress yourself, feed yourself, and >> show up for an interview where you will not be offered a job) >> >> Vygotsky, as usual, has a better idea--it's a mountain. We just turn the >> DeSeCO PPT upside down. Then we add each competence---freedom, creative >> intelligence, encultured habits and tastes, and instiinctive >> sociability--as a superstructure erected on the basis of the previous one: >> >> free will (the ability to make choices that are not necessarily intelligent >> or habitual or instinctive) >> intelligence (the ability to make choices that are not habitual or >> instinctive but nevertheless adaptive) >> enculturation (the ability to make choices that are not instinctive but >> conform to the choices that have proven successful in the now socialized >> environment) >> instinct (the ability to make choices that are responsive to the >> environment and which conform to the choices that have proven successful in >> phylogenesis) >> >> Are theses objects? Of course, if we say so. And processes? Well, how else >> could they have come about? What they are not, however, is either >> "discrete" or "discreet": they are clearly linked to each other, and they >> are all linked, through the lower layer, to adaptations ot the environment. >> >> And there's the rub--where the rubber meets the road. The real question, >> for our teachers and for our children, is about what will happen to them >> now that these competences can no longer be redeemed in jobs. Will the >> anti-Faustian bargain of exchanging your youth for a >> stable middle-aged livelihood survive? >> >> David Kellogg >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >>> Haydi, you say "AN activity is not a thing ; it's a >>> process." I wonder then what is a thing which is not also a >>> process? (I interpret "thing" as meaning "something >>> discrete," otherwise your objection makes no sense.) The >>> point is that Hegel does not make this dichotomy - every >>> thing is also a process and vice versa. That a process is >>> also discreet is important because it is only thanks to its >>> discreteness that we can cognise the process and in fact >>> only thanks to its discreteness that a process can affect >>> anything else. To speak of processes which are not also >>> discrete is to speak in abstractions. >>> >>> On this point, when Hegel puts ideas above matter, it has to >>> be realised that for Hegel "ideas" are social practices - he >>> is simply place human practice at the centre of human life >>> and its comprehension, rather than the mechanical and >>> chemical processes of Nature. If you think that "ideas" are >>> simply chimera inside our heads, then, of course, Hegel's >>> idealism seems like madness. >>> >>> Yes, all the Marxists have blasted Hegel. As they must. >>> Otherwise they must end up advocates of Constitutional >>> Monarchy. But while Marx uses almost every mention he makes >>> of Hegel to criticise him, often in extreme terms, it can go >>> unnoticed the extent to which in practice Marx follows Hegel >>> in philosophy. Of course Marx is not equal to Hegel, but >>> simple formulae do not contribute to understanding the relation. >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 15/10/2017 6:51 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: >>>> Andy, >>>> >>>> Let me first apologize to David Kellog because in others' >>>> wandering and perplexity it was he who in his reading of >>>> Gramsci's prison letters came across this point and made >>>> you not only accept the inappropriateness of Hegel's >>>> headstand as Crowning every worldly affair deriving from >>>> the People's Heads "Idea" , "Absolute" but also >>>> intensifying this point with more examples and references >>>> from Engels' "utopian versus genuine socialism" on your >>>> part. Of course you've been helping us on many occasions >>>> and you're very welcome for this nothing to be denied. >>>> >>>> At this point we have no problem with translation. >>>> Leontiev meant it. >>>> >>>> Suppose that ANL does not know "individual" which is very >>>> ambiguous because in what then one should seek the >>>> embodiment of the "particular" and if one takes the very >>>> particular as individual , then everything gets mixed up . >>>> Then what about you who stick firmly on individual >>>> discrete detached activities as an objection to Sasha's >>>> sole ACTIVITY as theoretical understanding. >>>> >>>> As you well know even AN activity is not a thing ; it's a >>>> process. And you once distinguished between GENERAL WORK >>>> ACTIVITY and LABOUR ACTIVITY or VALORIZATION ACTIVITY >>>> which was quite right and timely though you recently gave >>>> differing definitions in no way harmonious to your >>>> previous definitions. But the main problem is blending >>>> clarity in expression with concrete in theory. No doubt >>>> you're a Fan of Hegel. I should repeat myself : Hegel is a >>>> hero of theoretical concepts. In theorizing , and for him >>>> to explicate the Essence of Phenomena , he begins with >>>> apparently concrete things as ABSTRACTS finally reaches >>>> CONCRETE UNIVERSALS as concepts. And here we again very >>>> surprisingly see you put your finger upon what you should >>>> have known in person is contrary to your own erudition. >>>> Turning Hegel down as believing in discrete abstracts. >>>> >>>> And now to his son's comment : What individual are you >>>> pursuing? Your Hegel sees phenomena in their relations. >>>> According to him and also according to ANL ACTIVITY as a >>>> unit of Life is Molar non-additive. He even does not see >>>> operations as single acts. It's a matter of the angle of >>>> vision not detachment and concreteness. If his son had >>>> talked of concreteness in moments of activity , then you >>>> were right in your objections and oppositions. You please >>>> give us your last definition of activity here (not in >>>> lengthy references) so that we can have a discerning >>>> option. >>>> So far to remove the problem we should accept operations >>>> are separately and independently carried out ; actions in >>>> their own are carried out ; activities are carried out >>>> arbitrarily. And these are done to the realization of man >>>> as the ensemble of social relations based on some >>>> infrastructure. >>>> >>>> Hegel's metaphor has been thrown back at him by Marx , >>>> Engels , Lenin , Vygotsky , Ilyenko , and many others. If >>>> you like to stand above all Giants of Marxism , it's >>>> something perfectly and absolutely Personal as you're >>>> speaking out loud! Then why give us so many references. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Haydi >>>> >>>> P.S. Alfredo! Though you have my previous private response >>>> concerning the matters you pose I see myself accountable >>>> to rewrite them to the Public. Thanks! >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> *From:* Andy Blunden >>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> *Sent:* Sunday, 15 October 2017, 5:35:40 >>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity >>>> and communication >>>> >>>> Haydi, partly the problem with ANL's >>>> philosophy-as-we-know-it is simply a product of its >>>> translation into English. But partly it is also in his >>>> philosophy. As Victor Kaptelinin first pointed out (so far >>>> as I know), ANL knows the universal and the particular but >>>> he does not know the individual. And his son's comment that >>>> ANL did not conceive of Activity as being discrete proves >>>> this to be the case. Thus his concept of Activity is not a >>>> fully concrete concept. And this is not a product of >>>> translation. >>>> >>>> As David Kellogg has kindly pointed out to me, it was Hegel >>>> who actually first introduced this metaphor of people >>>> "walking (or standing) on their heads." Personally, I don't >>>> think it has ever helped anyone understand the defect of >>>> Hegel's philosophy to throw this metaphor back at him. As >>>> demonstrated in this issue (the concept of activity) it was >>>> Hegel who understood that a concept must have all three >>>> moments - universal, particular and individual. >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> On 15/10/2017 9:24 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: >>>>> Dear Mike, >>>>> Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an >>>> activist for his concreteness and clarifications is >>>> crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot >>>> ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes , Parts , >>>> and Moments. He personally provided us with examples from >>>> Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they convert >>>> Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced with the >>>> same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most >>>> valuable contribution) does not begin with the individual >>>> case in isolation which phenomenologically speaking (in >>>> contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for >>>> appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not obtained >>>> because one instance is considered detached from all >>>> relations and its subservience to the service of the >>>> Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is particular in >>>> some feature/s. And these particulars are essential. With >>>> other particulars in other individuals they are related >>>> actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense , this whole >>>> could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life itself. >>>> Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is , >>>> with category and concept only therefore , following Marx >>>> and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again on his >>>> feet (not that the firmament to that time did put "idea" >>>> on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on their >>>> heads but to put them again headstand thinking and acting >>>> with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just >>>> with their brains. Then taking all options in translation >>>> even that of a Machine into consideration it does not seem >>>> to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of >>>> Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of >>>> activities thereafter. These activities are those arising >>>> from the properties of versatile objects in turn arising >>>> from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile >>>> needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think >>>> Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual >>>> activities as moments with the broadest idea of the >>>> Monistic Substantial Modes or States in Philosophical >>>> terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn integrate and >>>> are dissolved into Monism of Substance. >>>>> Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche >>>> (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one >>>> Substance) is already there with the organism actively and >>>> spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own , >>>> positioning its due object and moving along its contours >>>> and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to itself >>>> , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and >>>> bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as >>>> novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with >>>> Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with a huge >>>> gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of >>>> consciousness , now apparently ascending to "wording" and >>>> "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration) further >>>> "communication" as something indispensable and necessary >>>> and inevitable to the realization of life affairs. >>>>> Best >>>>> Haydi >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: mike cole >>> > >>>>> To: Andy Blunden >>> >; "eXtended Mind, Culture, >>>> Activity" >>> > >>>>> Cc: Alexander Surmava >>> >; ivan-dgf >>>> >; Ivan >>>> Uemlianin >; >>>> Haydi Zulfei >>> > >>>>> Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50 >>>>> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented >>>> activity and communication >>>>> Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.Could someone post >>>> the Russian text next to the English so that it is >>>> possible to compare it with the translation? I spent >>>> several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of >>>> Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally defeated >>>> me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra rubles in >>>> my pocket. >>>>> Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us >>>> a "true" translation. >>>>> mike >>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden >>>> > wrote: >>>>> The Progress Publishers English translation of "Activity and >>>>> Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of >>>>> Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: >>>>> >>>>> Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, >>>>> material life of the material subject. In the narrower >>>>> sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a unit of >>>>> life, mediated by mental reflection, by >>>>> an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the >>>>> subject in the objective world. >>>>> >>>>> In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The >>>>> Development of Mind" we have: >>>>> >>>>> Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an >>>>> organism?s activity; the different activities that realise >>>>> its diverse vital relations with the surrounding reality are >>>>> essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore >>>>> differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively >>>>> different] types of activity according to the difference in >>>>> their objects. >>>>> >>>>> By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses >>>>> "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has >>>>> been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for >>>>> English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean simply >>>>> "category." The second does the same, but in addition makes >>>>> it evident that the plural does not refer to different >>>>> activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the >>>>> possibility of forming a true concept of activity >>>> altogether. >>>>> With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is >>>>> simply that "such an initial *category* can only be >>>>> object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing >>>>> that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, >>>>> even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. >>>>> >>>>> Andy >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics. >>>> org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>> On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: >>>>>> Dear Andy! >>>>>> I am glad that our communication was resumed after many >>>>>> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and files >>>>>> and found that the problem of "object oriented activity OR >>>>>> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before >>>>>> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is serious and >>>>>> it deserves to return to it today. >>>>>> Last year I was close to being silent forever. >>>>>> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed >>>>>> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the >>>>>> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my >>>>>> theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my >>>>>> descendants :-). >>>>>> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not >>>>>> understand your question. What means the distinction >>>>>> between singular and plural number in your remark? Could >>>>>> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the >>>>>> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my >>>>>> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, >>>>>> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of >>>>>> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my dissertation >>>>>> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's "Theory of >>>>>> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, >>>>>> having understood the theoretic meaning of your claims to >>>>>> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily >>>>>> understand the essence of your objections to me. >>>>>> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I >>>>>> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a >>>>>> particular empirical case of its manifestation. Therefore, >>>>>> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just like >>>>>> Matter, Nature, or Substance. >>>>>> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come across >>>>>> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its >>>>>> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the >>>>>> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old >>>>>> philosophers and that only the numerous individual "atomic >>>>>> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really >>>>>> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar >>>>>> positivism and empiricism. >>>>>> However, all of this may not apply to your position ... >>>>>> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. >>>>>> Best wishes >>>>>> Sasha >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden >>>>>> > ?????(?): >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll ask Sasha a question. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial >>>>>> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it >>>> stands, >>>>>> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be >>>> that you >>>>>> are translating it from a Russian statement that is >>>> correct. >>>>>> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in when I >>>>>> say "every activity has an object." But in your expression >>>>>> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and >>>> unless >>>>>> you are a religious person is not something which can >>>> have a >>>>>> specific object. All English translations of A N Leontyev >>>>>> make this mistake which has caused no end of confusion >>>> among >>>>>> English-speakers. >>>>>> >>>>>> Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," just as >>>>>> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." >>>>>> >>>>>> Andy >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics. >>>> org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>>>>>> Dear Sasha, all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding >>>>>> response. I think you are right in your assertion that we >>>>>> are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of >>>>>> CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. However, one >>>>>> can see in the lack of response by other members?? that >>>>>> not everyone has the privilege of the time it requires to >>>>>> go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing >>>>>> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce and I >>>>>> hope it is/will be appreciated as such. >>>>>>> If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I quote >>>>>> from your response: >>>>>>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" >>>>>>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework >>>>>> according to which we are looking of the most original >>>>>> germ cell, the one from which all others can be >>>>>> developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I >>>>>> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree on >>>> that. >>>>>>> But ??once we are back to the development of a concrete >>>>>> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact that, for >>>>>> any child to participate in human forms of object-oriented >>>>>> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented >>>>>> activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular >>>>>> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into those >>>>>> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category >>>>>> devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with >>>>>> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you describe, is >>>>>> this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, or is >>>>>> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? >>>>>>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others answer >>>>>> (which I hope some do). >>>>>>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in >>>>>> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of teaching >>>>>> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this >>>>>> is only possible through *involvement* in collective >>>>>> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary >>>>>> over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is >>>>>> only possible in and through object-oriented activity). >>>>>> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional aspect of >>>>>> the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to >>>>>> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this >>>>>> object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all >>>>>> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually >>>>>> uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such >>>>>> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get >>>>>> collective activity without them? On this, and precisely >>>>>> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of Man", >>>>>> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in that >>>>>> case that communication is included in activity and is its >>>>>> essential component: without relation to another >>>>>> person(s), activity is impossible' (144). Although I not >>>>>> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I can't >>>>>> see how he can be wrong. >>>>>>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of >>>>>> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the >>>>>> category of object-oriented activity, is most primary. Let >>>>>> me also note that ?there are other authors who have >>>>>> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you >>>>>> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on >>>>>> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom >>>>>> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of auto-affection' ( >>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/ Incarnation-Philosophy- >>>> Studies-Phenomenology- Existential/dp/0810131269 >>>>>> ) >>>>>>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I wonder >>>>>> whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity >>>>>> and communication. Is not the distinction just an artefact >>>>>> of a partial understanding of what it means activity and >>>>>> what it means communicating. I still feel that >>>>>> communication, in the sense of addressivity that Mikhailov >>>>>> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for >>>>>> semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity >>>>>> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't >>>>>> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps >>>>>> naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication >>>>>> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in >>>>>> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I >>>>>> don't see how any practical activity can have any sense >>>>>> (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. >>>>>> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are >>>>>> talking about; one machines could perform on their own >>>>>> without consciousness. ? >>>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ______________________________ __ >>>>>>> From: Alexander Surmava >>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 >>>>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> >>>>>> >>> edu>; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo >>>>>> Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole >>>>>>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >>>>>> aside) :-) >>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>>>>> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >>>>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical >>>>>> verbiage>>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ >>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> >>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>>>>> Agitprop >>>>>>> sticks >>>>>>> in my teeth too, >>>>>>> and I?d rather >>>>>>> compose >>>>>>> romances for you - >>>>>>> more profit in it >>>>>>> and more charm. >>>>>>> But I >>>>>>> subdued >>>>>>> myself, >>>>>>> setting my heel >>>>>>> on the throat >>>>>>> of my own song. >>>>>>> Vladimir Mayakovski >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? ??? >>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>> ? ????? ?????, >>>>>>> ? ??? ?? >>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>> ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>>>>> ???????? ??? >>>>>>> ? ??????????. >>>>>>> ?? ? >>>>>>> ???? >>>>>>> ??????, >>>>>>> ????????? >>>>>>> ?? ????? >>>>>>> ??????????? ?????. >>>>>>> ???????? ?????????? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >>>>>> to the concrete. >>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >>>>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>> ????????????>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% >>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . >>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange >>>>>> reason was not published then or later. >>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. >>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >>>>>> return to this somehow later. >>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>>>>> work of 1988: >>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >>>> activity. >>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >>>> relation.? >>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>>>>> "addressing" to another person. >>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >>>> Ilyenkov. >>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>>>>> social relations.. " >>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>>>>> solved by ourselves. >>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was AN >>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >>>>>> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of >>>>>> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was inclined to >>>>>> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, >>>>>> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" >>>>>> were for communication. >>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>>>>> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal >>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >>>>>> rather indecent. >>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>>>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters >>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>>>>> "communication" and "activity." >>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. >>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my >>>>>> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a >>>>>> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the >>>>>> relation of objective activity and "communication". In the >>>>>> same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, >>>>>> the active relation of the subject to the object and to >>>>>> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, >>>>>> indeed, any other, psychology. >>>>>>> ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????, >>>>>> ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, >>>>>> ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, >>>>>> ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? >>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>> ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. >>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>>>>> English text >>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>> and read it to the end :-). >>>>>>> ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>> ????????????>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> >>>>>>> ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? >>>>>> ??????????? ???????? >>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ >>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% >>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% >>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% >>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% >>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% >>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 >>>>>> . >>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >>>>>> aside) :-) >>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>>>>> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >>>>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical >>>>>> verbiage>>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ >>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> >>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>>>>> Agitprop >>>>>>> sticks >>>>>>> in my teeth too, >>>>>>> and I?d rather >>>>>>> compose >>>>>>> romances for you - >>>>>>> more profit in it >>>>>>> and more charm. >>>>>>> But I >>>>>>> subdued >>>>>>> myself, >>>>>>> setting my heel >>>>>>> on the throat >>>>>>> of my own song. >>>>>>> Vladimir Mayakovski >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? ??? >>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>> ? ????? ?????, >>>>>>> ? ??? ?? >>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>> ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>>>>> ???????? ??? >>>>>>> ? ??????????. >>>>>>> ?? ? >>>>>>> ???? >>>>>>> ??????, >>>>>>> ????????? >>>>>>> ?? ????? >>>>>>> ??????????? ?????. >>>>>>> ???????? ?????????? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >>>>>> to the concrete. >>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >>>>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>> ????????????>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% >>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . >>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange >>>>>> reason was not published then or later. >>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. >>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >>>>>> return to this somehow later. >>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>>>>> work of 1988: >>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >>>> activity. >>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >>>> relation.? >>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>>>>> "addressing" to another person. >>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >>>> Ilyenkov. >>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>>>>> social relations.. " >>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>>>>> solved by ourselves. >>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was >>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >>>>>> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas >>>>>> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was >>>>>> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other >>>>>> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas >>>>>> "Leningraders" were for "communication". >>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>>>>> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a literal >>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >>>>>> rather indecent. >>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>>>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters >>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>>>>> "communication" and "activity." >>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>> object oriented activity, which is an attribute property >>>>>> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, >>>>>> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we >>>>>> will never get life or object oriented activity even with >>>>>> the greatest diligence. >>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my diploma >>>>>> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist >>>>>> theoretical solution to the question of the relation of >>>>>> objective activity and "communication". In the same time, >>>>>> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active >>>>>> relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is >>>>>> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, >>>>>> any other, psychology. >>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>>>>> English text >>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>> and read it to the end :-). >>>>>>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>> ????????????>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> >>>>>>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short >>>>>> English one >>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ >>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% >>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% >>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% >>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% >>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% >>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. >>>>>>> Sasha >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > > From ablunden@mira.net Mon Oct 16 05:39:00 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 23:39:00 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Yes, yes, Alfredo! But what is often overlooked is that the aim of Marx's research is not commodity exchange (in itself a harmless business) but capital. But he does not *start* with capital, but goes down to its roots, its source, in the circulation of commodities. Compare with Vygotsky's analysis of the intellect (thinking). Word meanings are *not* the subject matter of Vygotsky's research (who gives a damn!?), but concepts! But he does not start with concepts, but goes down to its roots, its source, in speech arising in collaborative activity. Actually, AN Leontyev missed this, as can be seen in his trenchant attack on Vygotsky in his ?Study of the Environment in the Pedological Works of L. S. Vygotsky". Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 16/10/2017 11:31 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Damn! Commodity exchange is the unit of burgeons society... I have to study more! Thanks Andy > > "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as ?an immense accumulation of commodities,?[1] its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity" > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden > Sent: 16 October 2017 14:22 > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication > > Just to illustrate that I am being an orthodox Marxist here, > from Chapter 10, Vol. 3 of Capital: > > "In the case of capitals of average, or approximately > average, composition, the price of production is thus > the same or almost the same as the value, and the profit > the same as the surplus-value produced by them. All > other capitals, of whatever composition, tend toward > this average under pressure of competition. But since > the capitals of average composition are of the same, or > approximately the same, structure as the average social > capital, all capitals have the tendency, regardless of > the surplus-value produced by them, to realize the > average profit, rather than their own surplus-value in > the price of their commodity, i.e., to realize the > prices of production." > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 16/10/2017 11:18 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >> No, Alfredo. A unit of capital is a firm (or company). It is >> impossible to explain the formation of a rate of profit (at >> least as Marx does in /Capital/) without the conception of >> units of capital, namely, firms and the competition between >> them. Firms are of course, what Engestrom would call a >> "system of activity" or I would call a "project" and >> Leontyev almost could call an activity. But in the USSR >> there were no firms, only the state. It is perhaps A N >> Leonytev's greatest discovery that there are both micro and >> molar units in any complex process. True in Psychology and >> true in political economy. Whereas exchange of commodities >> is an artefact-mediated action, a firm is an activity, a >> specific aggregate of actions, directed towards the >> quantitative maximisation of the value of the unit of capital. >> >> English is not a perfect language either. : ) The word >> "consciousness" has the unfortunate connotation of being a >> mass noun (or continuous substance) whereas it is know only, >> of course, in individual "consciousnesses" or "minds." But >> it sounds so clumsy to say "a consciousness." >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 16/10/2017 11:07 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>> Haydi, >>> >>> I think Andy does not mean 'one capital' versus 'several capitals', for, if I read Andy adequately, Capital is for him not a unit but rather the whole of which commodity exchange is the unit. Thus, the germ cell of Capital is thus not Capital, or 'a' Capital, which you seem to attribute to Andy; just as I don't think he is arguing that there is consciousness, and then many consciousnesses. So it may be that you two agree more than disagree, judging by your last paragraph. >>> >>> Whether his position on singular and plurals is more or less adequate than another positions, that I leave it up to the discussion. >>> >>> Alfredo >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? >>> Sent: 16 October 2017 09:45 >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Andy Blunden >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >>> >>> Thank you David for your explanation! Though for me it needs more than one read. >>> >>> The point was whether use of activity and activities in Leontiev is a contradiction. Whoever L was and whatever he believed in , he was not so negligent to the point of posing activity first and immediately after that recounting 'activities'. Translation ruled out a committed error. Then such a blundering display must have a justification rather than a misunderstanding in comprehension. >>> >>> In one sense all things are related. The more so with the Monistic View. We have so many corporate and incorporate things , two of them so problematic communication and practical activity since Descartes and we are determined to avoid Dualism and refer and return all phenomena to that same thing , the one substance. In the actuality of the world , there's nothing discrete , that is , absolutely unrelated. Is that pretext for us not to see this unbounded versatility and hues and dues as distinct coloring? Maybe one of the ways was for man to let Nature go unrestrained?? But man also did not come of its own will. >>> >>> The sole way destined or open to Man was of its Nature to engage with the surrounding. To deal with it sensually and subjectively/agently. Then Man in one time interpreted all phenomena as they appeared to him. But he grew up further than his infantile period. He learnt to delve into matters , go deeper and deeper. With one spectacle (plane) he observed how that single substance let its attributes multiply themselves into different shapes and colors and Modes. With another plane of the one spectacle observed the variation of the Modes themselves. I mean Ontology and Epistemology not yet separate from each other as I used a pair of planes for that matter. >>> >>> Then we usually don't use a nail-clipper for alterations and manipulations in Genes. Or devices for Genes for our feeding and nutrition. It is then within these constraints that corporate and incorporate phenomena differ. Singles and plurals differ. Discrete and the indivisible differ. Parts and Moments differ. Wholes and mere entities differ. A process and a product resulting from that process differ. No justification to interchange them because of the use of A in front of them. >>> >>> I wonder if this is true for others too. For me it's difficult to accept to say "this capital that capital" "those 8 capitals united" "capitals of the world dissolved into unanimity". If I'm correct in this , it's , I think , because Capital is a Whole , coming out of a long process of functions and disfunctions , moments of circulations and transient stagnation , booms and boosts and drawbacks and failures. The moment of its conception in the exchange of commodities up to the discovery of the private appropriation of the surplus value to the point of harnessing every means to penetrate each tight corner of the big World. >>> >>> Best >>> Haydi >>> >>> >>> From: David Kellogg >>> To: Andy Blunden ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >>> Sent: Monday, 16 October 2017, 2:21:12 >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >>> >>> Of course, neither an object nor a process is discrete (or even, as Andy >>> says, "discreet"). Who can tell me where a mountain river ends and the >>> alluvial plain begins? Certainly not Cezanne or the phenomenologists who so >>> loved him. Yet a mountain is most assuredly an object, just as surely >>> as climbing the mountain to ascertain its degree of montagnitude is a >>> process. >>> >>> This last week I've been struggling through the "Curriculum Reforms" >>> wrought by three right wing governments in Norway, Finland, and New >>> Zealand. Like Catalonia, these are all countries where unpopular coalitions >>> of right parties are replacing a much more popular but obviously >>> unsuccessful social democratic coalition of left parties. In Norway and in >>> Finland, the coalition actually includes the far right, neo-fascist, >>> anti-immigrant parties, and in New Zealand it includes the ACT, that is, an >>> "association of consumers and taxpayers" whose main interest is cutting >>> education budgets, starting by making teachers and students fight each >>> other for scarce resources in the form of "block grants". >>> >>> Now, all of these governments are more or less bound by something called >>> DeSeCo, which is short for Describe and Select Competences. This is because >>> right-wing ideology sees education not as a public good but as a commodity, >>> to be judged by tangible results and priced accordingly. This presents a >>> real theoretical problem for right-wingers, because they ALSO see that >>> "flexible labor markets" and "entrepreneurial spirit" means that there >>> isn't any way of deciding on what skills or even what knowledge the >>> "economy of the future" will demand. >>> >>> We can see this in the emphasis on "competence". Competence is not a thing >>> or a process, and it is neither discrete nor discreet. Of course, if you >>> are a linguist, competence is something Chomsky thought of in the sixties, >>> an abstract form of knowledge in a hypothetical native speaker-hearer in an >>> imaginary homogenous speech community. It is "discrete" in the sense of >>> being nowhere and nowhen connectible to performance in any way. It is >>> therefore "discreet" in the sense of being untestable--as soon as you test >>> it, you have a form of performance, not competence. It's like standing in >>> front of a classroom with a picture of a guy swimming and trying to teach >>> the expression "i can swim". What you have in the picture is not "I can >>> swim"; it's manifestly "he is swimming". >>> >>> But in DeSeCo, you get these lists of competences, which are set up as if >>> they were discrete so you can list them on a Powerpoint slide and sell them >>> to ministries of education. And the real selling point is that, on the one >>> hand, because they are all "meta-skills" and "meta-knowledges", they don't >>> have any practical outcome or real commitment to a job and a livelihood. >>> And on the other, they sound terribly powerful when you phrase them as >>> "learning to learn" or "transversal competence" or "meta-cognitive skills" >>> or something like that. Jobs, in other words, are discretionary. After >>> centuries of promising jobs and livelhood in return for school and boredom, >>> the Western economies have decided that sticks are cheaper than carrots, >>> and the thing to do is simply to rule people who don't have educational >>> certificates out of the job market rather than try to provide >>> actual know-how and factual know-that. >>> >>> Here are my four favorites (i.e. the four that we stress in our own >>> curricular reform here in South Korea): >>> >>> interpersonal competence (sociability, the ability to 'be alone with >>> others' as Hughlings Jackson put it) >>> cultural competence (enculturation, the ability to understand traditions, >>> mores, and norms) >>> creative competence (intelligence, innovation, yadda yadda) >>> individual competence (the ability to dress yourself, feed yourself, and >>> show up for an interview where you will not be offered a job) >>> >>> Vygotsky, as usual, has a better idea--it's a mountain. We just turn the >>> DeSeCO PPT upside down. Then we add each competence---freedom, creative >>> intelligence, encultured habits and tastes, and instiinctive >>> sociability--as a superstructure erected on the basis of the previous one: >>> >>> free will (the ability to make choices that are not necessarily intelligent >>> or habitual or instinctive) >>> intelligence (the ability to make choices that are not habitual or >>> instinctive but nevertheless adaptive) >>> enculturation (the ability to make choices that are not instinctive but >>> conform to the choices that have proven successful in the now socialized >>> environment) >>> instinct (the ability to make choices that are responsive to the >>> environment and which conform to the choices that have proven successful in >>> phylogenesis) >>> >>> Are theses objects? Of course, if we say so. And processes? Well, how else >>> could they have come about? What they are not, however, is either >>> "discrete" or "discreet": they are clearly linked to each other, and they >>> are all linked, through the lower layer, to adaptations ot the environment. >>> >>> And there's the rub--where the rubber meets the road. The real question, >>> for our teachers and for our children, is about what will happen to them >>> now that these competences can no longer be redeemed in jobs. Will the >>> anti-Faustian bargain of exchanging your youth for a >>> stable middle-aged livelihood survive? >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >>> >>>> Haydi, you say "AN activity is not a thing ; it's a >>>> process." I wonder then what is a thing which is not also a >>>> process? (I interpret "thing" as meaning "something >>>> discrete," otherwise your objection makes no sense.) The >>>> point is that Hegel does not make this dichotomy - every >>>> thing is also a process and vice versa. That a process is >>>> also discreet is important because it is only thanks to its >>>> discreteness that we can cognise the process and in fact >>>> only thanks to its discreteness that a process can affect >>>> anything else. To speak of processes which are not also >>>> discrete is to speak in abstractions. >>>> >>>> On this point, when Hegel puts ideas above matter, it has to >>>> be realised that for Hegel "ideas" are social practices - he >>>> is simply place human practice at the centre of human life >>>> and its comprehension, rather than the mechanical and >>>> chemical processes of Nature. If you think that "ideas" are >>>> simply chimera inside our heads, then, of course, Hegel's >>>> idealism seems like madness. >>>> >>>> Yes, all the Marxists have blasted Hegel. As they must. >>>> Otherwise they must end up advocates of Constitutional >>>> Monarchy. But while Marx uses almost every mention he makes >>>> of Hegel to criticise him, often in extreme terms, it can go >>>> unnoticed the extent to which in practice Marx follows Hegel >>>> in philosophy. Of course Marx is not equal to Hegel, but >>>> simple formulae do not contribute to understanding the relation. >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> On 15/10/2017 6:51 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: >>>>> Andy, >>>>> >>>>> Let me first apologize to David Kellog because in others' >>>>> wandering and perplexity it was he who in his reading of >>>>> Gramsci's prison letters came across this point and made >>>>> you not only accept the inappropriateness of Hegel's >>>>> headstand as Crowning every worldly affair deriving from >>>>> the People's Heads "Idea" , "Absolute" but also >>>>> intensifying this point with more examples and references >>>>> from Engels' "utopian versus genuine socialism" on your >>>>> part. Of course you've been helping us on many occasions >>>>> and you're very welcome for this nothing to be denied. >>>>> >>>>> At this point we have no problem with translation. >>>>> Leontiev meant it. >>>>> >>>>> Suppose that ANL does not know "individual" which is very >>>>> ambiguous because in what then one should seek the >>>>> embodiment of the "particular" and if one takes the very >>>>> particular as individual , then everything gets mixed up . >>>>> Then what about you who stick firmly on individual >>>>> discrete detached activities as an objection to Sasha's >>>>> sole ACTIVITY as theoretical understanding. >>>>> >>>>> As you well know even AN activity is not a thing ; it's a >>>>> process. And you once distinguished between GENERAL WORK >>>>> ACTIVITY and LABOUR ACTIVITY or VALORIZATION ACTIVITY >>>>> which was quite right and timely though you recently gave >>>>> differing definitions in no way harmonious to your >>>>> previous definitions. But the main problem is blending >>>>> clarity in expression with concrete in theory. No doubt >>>>> you're a Fan of Hegel. I should repeat myself : Hegel is a >>>>> hero of theoretical concepts. In theorizing , and for him >>>>> to explicate the Essence of Phenomena , he begins with >>>>> apparently concrete things as ABSTRACTS finally reaches >>>>> CONCRETE UNIVERSALS as concepts. And here we again very >>>>> surprisingly see you put your finger upon what you should >>>>> have known in person is contrary to your own erudition. >>>>> Turning Hegel down as believing in discrete abstracts. >>>>> >>>>> And now to his son's comment : What individual are you >>>>> pursuing? Your Hegel sees phenomena in their relations. >>>>> According to him and also according to ANL ACTIVITY as a >>>>> unit of Life is Molar non-additive. He even does not see >>>>> operations as single acts. It's a matter of the angle of >>>>> vision not detachment and concreteness. If his son had >>>>> talked of concreteness in moments of activity , then you >>>>> were right in your objections and oppositions. You please >>>>> give us your last definition of activity here (not in >>>>> lengthy references) so that we can have a discerning >>>>> option. >>>>> So far to remove the problem we should accept operations >>>>> are separately and independently carried out ; actions in >>>>> their own are carried out ; activities are carried out >>>>> arbitrarily. And these are done to the realization of man >>>>> as the ensemble of social relations based on some >>>>> infrastructure. >>>>> >>>>> Hegel's metaphor has been thrown back at him by Marx , >>>>> Engels , Lenin , Vygotsky , Ilyenko , and many others. If >>>>> you like to stand above all Giants of Marxism , it's >>>>> something perfectly and absolutely Personal as you're >>>>> speaking out loud! Then why give us so many references. >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>> Haydi >>>>> >>>>> P.S. Alfredo! Though you have my previous private response >>>>> concerning the matters you pose I see myself accountable >>>>> to rewrite them to the Public. Thanks! >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> *From:* Andy Blunden >>>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, 15 October 2017, 5:35:40 >>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity >>>>> and communication >>>>> >>>>> Haydi, partly the problem with ANL's >>>>> philosophy-as-we-know-it is simply a product of its >>>>> translation into English. But partly it is also in his >>>>> philosophy. As Victor Kaptelinin first pointed out (so far >>>>> as I know), ANL knows the universal and the particular but >>>>> he does not know the individual. And his son's comment that >>>>> ANL did not conceive of Activity as being discrete proves >>>>> this to be the case. Thus his concept of Activity is not a >>>>> fully concrete concept. And this is not a product of >>>>> translation. >>>>> >>>>> As David Kellogg has kindly pointed out to me, it was Hegel >>>>> who actually first introduced this metaphor of people >>>>> "walking (or standing) on their heads." Personally, I don't >>>>> think it has ever helped anyone understand the defect of >>>>> Hegel's philosophy to throw this metaphor back at him. As >>>>> demonstrated in this issue (the concept of activity) it was >>>>> Hegel who understood that a concept must have all three >>>>> moments - universal, particular and individual. >>>>> >>>>> Andy >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>> On 15/10/2017 9:24 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: >>>>>> Dear Mike, >>>>>> Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an >>>>> activist for his concreteness and clarifications is >>>>> crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot >>>>> ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes , Parts , >>>>> and Moments. He personally provided us with examples from >>>>> Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they convert >>>>> Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced with the >>>>> same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most >>>>> valuable contribution) does not begin with the individual >>>>> case in isolation which phenomenologically speaking (in >>>>> contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for >>>>> appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not obtained >>>>> because one instance is considered detached from all >>>>> relations and its subservience to the service of the >>>>> Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is particular in >>>>> some feature/s. And these particulars are essential. With >>>>> other particulars in other individuals they are related >>>>> actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense , this whole >>>>> could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life itself. >>>>> Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is , >>>>> with category and concept only therefore , following Marx >>>>> and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again on his >>>>> feet (not that the firmament to that time did put "idea" >>>>> on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on their >>>>> heads but to put them again headstand thinking and acting >>>>> with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just >>>>> with their brains. Then taking all options in translation >>>>> even that of a Machine into consideration it does not seem >>>>> to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of >>>>> Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of >>>>> activities thereafter. These activities are those arising >>>>> from the properties of versatile objects in turn arising >>>>> from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile >>>>> needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think >>>>> Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual >>>>> activities as moments with the broadest idea of the >>>>> Monistic Substantial Modes or States in Philosophical >>>>> terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn integrate and >>>>> are dissolved into Monism of Substance. >>>>>> Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche >>>>> (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one >>>>> Substance) is already there with the organism actively and >>>>> spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own , >>>>> positioning its due object and moving along its contours >>>>> and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to itself >>>>> , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and >>>>> bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as >>>>> novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with >>>>> Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with a huge >>>>> gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of >>>>> consciousness , now apparently ascending to "wording" and >>>>> "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration) further >>>>> "communication" as something indispensable and necessary >>>>> and inevitable to the realization of life affairs. >>>>>> Best >>>>>> Haydi >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: mike cole >>>> > >>>>>> To: Andy Blunden >>>> >; "eXtended Mind, Culture, >>>>> Activity" >>>> > >>>>>> Cc: Alexander Surmava >>>> >; ivan-dgf >>>>> >; Ivan >>>>> Uemlianin >; >>>>> Haydi Zulfei >>>> > >>>>>> Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50 >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented >>>>> activity and communication >>>>>> Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.Could someone post >>>>> the Russian text next to the English so that it is >>>>> possible to compare it with the translation? I spent >>>>> several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of >>>>> Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally defeated >>>>> me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra rubles in >>>>> my pocket. >>>>>> Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us >>>>> a "true" translation. >>>>>> mike >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> The Progress Publishers English translation of "Activity and >>>>>> Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of >>>>>> Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: >>>>>> >>>>>> Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, >>>>>> material life of the material subject. In the narrower >>>>>> sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a unit of >>>>>> life, mediated by mental reflection, by >>>>>> an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the >>>>>> subject in the objective world. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The >>>>>> Development of Mind" we have: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an >>>>>> organism?s activity; the different activities that realise >>>>>> its diverse vital relations with the surrounding reality are >>>>>> essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore >>>>>> differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively >>>>>> different] types of activity according to the difference in >>>>>> their objects. >>>>>> >>>>>> By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses >>>>>> "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has >>>>>> been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for >>>>>> English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean simply >>>>>> "category." The second does the same, but in addition makes >>>>>> it evident that the plural does not refer to different >>>>>> activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the >>>>>> possibility of forming a true concept of activity >>>>> altogether. >>>>>> With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is >>>>>> simply that "such an initial *category* can only be >>>>>> object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing >>>>>> that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, >>>>>> even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. >>>>>> >>>>>> Andy >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics. >>>>> org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>> On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: >>>>>>> Dear Andy! >>>>>>> I am glad that our communication was resumed after many >>>>>>> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and files >>>>>>> and found that the problem of "object oriented activity OR >>>>>>> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before >>>>>>> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is serious and >>>>>>> it deserves to return to it today. >>>>>>> Last year I was close to being silent forever. >>>>>>> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed >>>>>>> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the >>>>>>> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my >>>>>>> theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my >>>>>>> descendants :-). >>>>>>> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not >>>>>>> understand your question. What means the distinction >>>>>>> between singular and plural number in your remark? Could >>>>>>> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the >>>>>>> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my >>>>>>> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, >>>>>>> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of >>>>>>> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my dissertation >>>>>>> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's "Theory of >>>>>>> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, >>>>>>> having understood the theoretic meaning of your claims to >>>>>>> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily >>>>>>> understand the essence of your objections to me. >>>>>>> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I >>>>>>> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a >>>>>>> particular empirical case of its manifestation. Therefore, >>>>>>> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just like >>>>>>> Matter, Nature, or Substance. >>>>>>> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come across >>>>>>> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its >>>>>>> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the >>>>>>> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old >>>>>>> philosophers and that only the numerous individual "atomic >>>>>>> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really >>>>>>> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar >>>>>>> positivism and empiricism. >>>>>>> However, all of this may not apply to your position ... >>>>>>> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. >>>>>>> Best wishes >>>>>>> Sasha >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden >>>>>>> > ?????(?): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'll ask Sasha a question. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial >>>>>>> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it >>>>> stands, >>>>>>> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be >>>>> that you >>>>>>> are translating it from a Russian statement that is >>>>> correct. >>>>>>> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in when I >>>>>>> say "every activity has an object." But in your expression >>>>>>> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and >>>>> unless >>>>>>> you are a religious person is not something which can >>>>> have a >>>>>>> specific object. All English translations of A N Leontyev >>>>>>> make this mistake which has caused no end of confusion >>>>> among >>>>>>> English-speakers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," just as >>>>>>> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics. >>>>> org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>>>>>>> Dear Sasha, all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding >>>>>>> response. I think you are right in your assertion that we >>>>>>> are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of >>>>>>> CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. However, one >>>>>>> can see in the lack of response by other members?? that >>>>>>> not everyone has the privilege of the time it requires to >>>>>>> go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing >>>>>>> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce and I >>>>>>> hope it is/will be appreciated as such. >>>>>>>> If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I quote >>>>>>> from your response: >>>>>>>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" >>>>>>>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework >>>>>>> according to which we are looking of the most original >>>>>>> germ cell, the one from which all others can be >>>>>>> developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I >>>>>>> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree on >>>>> that. >>>>>>>> But ??once we are back to the development of a concrete >>>>>>> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact that, for >>>>>>> any child to participate in human forms of object-oriented >>>>>>> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented >>>>>>> activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular >>>>>>> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into those >>>>>>> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category >>>>>>> devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with >>>>>>> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you describe, is >>>>>>> this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, or is >>>>>>> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? >>>>>>>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others answer >>>>>>> (which I hope some do). >>>>>>>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in >>>>>>> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of teaching >>>>>>> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this >>>>>>> is only possible through *involvement* in collective >>>>>>> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary >>>>>>> over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is >>>>>>> only possible in and through object-oriented activity). >>>>>>> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional aspect of >>>>>>> the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to >>>>>>> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this >>>>>>> object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all >>>>>>> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually >>>>>>> uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such >>>>>>> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get >>>>>>> collective activity without them? On this, and precisely >>>>>>> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of Man", >>>>>>> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in that >>>>>>> case that communication is included in activity and is its >>>>>>> essential component: without relation to another >>>>>>> person(s), activity is impossible' (144). Although I not >>>>>>> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I can't >>>>>>> see how he can be wrong. >>>>>>>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of >>>>>>> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the >>>>>>> category of object-oriented activity, is most primary. Let >>>>>>> me also note that ?there are other authors who have >>>>>>> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you >>>>>>> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on >>>>>>> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom >>>>>>> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of auto-affection' ( >>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/ Incarnation-Philosophy- >>>>> Studies-Phenomenology- Existential/dp/0810131269 >>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I wonder >>>>>>> whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity >>>>>>> and communication. Is not the distinction just an artefact >>>>>>> of a partial understanding of what it means activity and >>>>>>> what it means communicating. I still feel that >>>>>>> communication, in the sense of addressivity that Mikhailov >>>>>>> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for >>>>>>> semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity >>>>>>> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't >>>>>>> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps >>>>>>> naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication >>>>>>> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in >>>>>>> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I >>>>>>> don't see how any practical activity can have any sense >>>>>>> (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. >>>>>>> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are >>>>>>> talking about; one machines could perform on their own >>>>>>> without consciousness. ? >>>>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ______________________________ __ >>>>>>>> From: Alexander Surmava >>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 >>>>>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> edu>; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo >>>>>>> Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole >>>>>>>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >>>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >>>>>>> aside) :-) >>>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >>>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >>>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >>>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >>>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >>>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >>>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>>>>>> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >>>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >>>>>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >>>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >>>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical >>>>>>> verbiage>>>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ >>>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> >>>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >>>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >>>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>>>>>> Agitprop >>>>>>>> sticks >>>>>>>> in my teeth too, >>>>>>>> and I?d rather >>>>>>>> compose >>>>>>>> romances for you - >>>>>>>> more profit in it >>>>>>>> and more charm. >>>>>>>> But I >>>>>>>> subdued >>>>>>>> myself, >>>>>>>> setting my heel >>>>>>>> on the throat >>>>>>>> of my own song. >>>>>>>> Vladimir Mayakovski >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? ??? >>>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>>> ? ????? ?????, >>>>>>>> ? ??? ?? >>>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>>> ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>>>>>> ???????? ??? >>>>>>>> ? ??????????. >>>>>>>> ?? ? >>>>>>>> ???? >>>>>>>> ??????, >>>>>>>> ????????? >>>>>>>> ?? ????? >>>>>>>> ??????????? ?????. >>>>>>>> ???????? ?????????? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >>>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >>>>>>> to the concrete. >>>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >>>>>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>> ????????????>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% >>>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . >>>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange >>>>>>> reason was not published then or later. >>>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. >>>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >>>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >>>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >>>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >>>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >>>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >>>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >>>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >>>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >>>>>>> return to this somehow later. >>>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>>>>>> work of 1988: >>>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >>>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >>>>> activity. >>>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >>>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >>>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >>>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >>>>> relation.? >>>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>>>>>> "addressing" to another person. >>>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >>>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >>>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >>>>> Ilyenkov. >>>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >>>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >>>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >>>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>>>>>> social relations.. " >>>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >>>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >>>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >>>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>>>>>> solved by ourselves. >>>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was AN >>>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >>>>>>> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of >>>>>>> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was inclined to >>>>>>> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, >>>>>>> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" >>>>>>> were for communication. >>>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>>>>>> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal >>>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >>>>>>> rather indecent. >>>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >>>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>>>>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >>>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters >>>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>>>>>> "communication" and "activity." >>>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. >>>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >>>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >>>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >>>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >>>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >>>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my >>>>>>> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a >>>>>>> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the >>>>>>> relation of objective activity and "communication". In the >>>>>>> same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, >>>>>>> the active relation of the subject to the object and to >>>>>>> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, >>>>>>> indeed, any other, psychology. >>>>>>>> ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????, >>>>>>> ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, >>>>>>> ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, >>>>>>> ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? >>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>>> ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. >>>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >>>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >>>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>>>>>> English text >>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>>> and read it to the end :-). >>>>>>>> ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>> ????????????>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> >>>>>>>> ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? >>>>>>> ??????????? ???????? >>>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ >>>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% >>>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% >>>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% >>>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% >>>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% >>>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 >>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >>>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >>>>>>> aside) :-) >>>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >>>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >>>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >>>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >>>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >>>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >>>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>>>>>> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >>>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >>>>>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >>>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >>>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical >>>>>>> verbiage>>>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ >>>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> >>>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >>>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >>>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>>>>>> Agitprop >>>>>>>> sticks >>>>>>>> in my teeth too, >>>>>>>> and I?d rather >>>>>>>> compose >>>>>>>> romances for you - >>>>>>>> more profit in it >>>>>>>> and more charm. >>>>>>>> But I >>>>>>>> subdued >>>>>>>> myself, >>>>>>>> setting my heel >>>>>>>> on the throat >>>>>>>> of my own song. >>>>>>>> Vladimir Mayakovski >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? ??? >>>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>>> ? ????? ?????, >>>>>>>> ? ??? ?? >>>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>>> ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>>>>>> ???????? ??? >>>>>>>> ? ??????????. >>>>>>>> ?? ? >>>>>>>> ???? >>>>>>>> ??????, >>>>>>>> ????????? >>>>>>>> ?? ????? >>>>>>>> ??????????? ?????. >>>>>>>> ???????? ?????????? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >>>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >>>>>>> to the concrete. >>>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >>>>>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>> ????????????>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% >>>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . >>>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange >>>>>>> reason was not published then or later. >>>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. >>>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >>>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >>>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >>>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >>>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >>>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >>>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >>>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >>>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >>>>>>> return to this somehow later. >>>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>>>>>> work of 1988: >>>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >>>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >>>>> activity. >>>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >>>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >>>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >>>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >>>>> relation.? >>>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>>>>>> "addressing" to another person. >>>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >>>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >>>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >>>>> Ilyenkov. >>>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >>>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >>>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >>>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>>>>>> social relations.. " >>>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >>>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >>>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >>>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>>>>>> solved by ourselves. >>>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was >>>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >>>>>>> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas >>>>>>> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was >>>>>>> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other >>>>>>> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas >>>>>>> "Leningraders" were for "communication". >>>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>>>>>> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a literal >>>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >>>>>>> rather indecent. >>>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >>>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>>>>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >>>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters >>>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>>>>>> "communication" and "activity." >>>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>>> object oriented activity, which is an attribute property >>>>>>> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, >>>>>>> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we >>>>>>> will never get life or object oriented activity even with >>>>>>> the greatest diligence. >>>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >>>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >>>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >>>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >>>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >>>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my diploma >>>>>>> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist >>>>>>> theoretical solution to the question of the relation of >>>>>>> objective activity and "communication". In the same time, >>>>>>> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active >>>>>>> relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is >>>>>>> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, >>>>>>> any other, psychology. >>>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >>>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >>>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>>>>>> English text >>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>>> and read it to the end :-). >>>>>>>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>> ????????????>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> >>>>>>>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short >>>>>>> English one >>>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ >>>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% >>>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% >>>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% >>>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% >>>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% >>>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. >>>>>>>> Sasha >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Mon Oct 16 05:42:58 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 12:42:58 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no>, Message-ID: <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> Your point in the first paragraph is what I was trying to convey to Haidy, to see if there is room there for common ground between your positions. ? Alfredo ________________________________ From: Andy Blunden Sent: 16 October 2017 14:39 To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Yes, yes, Alfredo! But what is often overlooked is that the aim of Marx's research is not commodity exchange (in itself a harmless business) but capital. But he does not *start* with capital, but goes down to its roots, its source, in the circulation of commodities. Compare with Vygotsky's analysis of the intellect (thinking). Word meanings are *not* the subject matter of Vygotsky's research (who gives a damn!?), but concepts! But he does not start with concepts, but goes down to its roots, its source, in speech arising in collaborative activity. Actually, AN Leontyev missed this, as can be seen in his trenchant attack on Vygotsky in his ?Study of the Environment in the Pedological Works of L. S. Vygotsky". Andy ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 16/10/2017 11:31 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: Damn! Commodity exchange is the unit of burgeons society... I have to study more! Thanks Andy "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as ?an immense accumulation of commodities,?[1] its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity" Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: 16 October 2017 14:22 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Just to illustrate that I am being an orthodox Marxist here, from Chapter 10, Vol. 3 of Capital: "In the case of capitals of average, or approximately average, composition, the price of production is thus the same or almost the same as the value, and the profit the same as the surplus-value produced by them. All other capitals, of whatever composition, tend toward this average under pressure of competition. But since the capitals of average composition are of the same, or approximately the same, structure as the average social capital, all capitals have the tendency, regardless of the surplus-value produced by them, to realize the average profit, rather than their own surplus-value in the price of their commodity, i.e., to realize the prices of production." Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 16/10/2017 11:18 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: No, Alfredo. A unit of capital is a firm (or company). It is impossible to explain the formation of a rate of profit (at least as Marx does in /Capital/) without the conception of units of capital, namely, firms and the competition between them. Firms are of course, what Engestrom would call a "system of activity" or I would call a "project" and Leontyev almost could call an activity. But in the USSR there were no firms, only the state. It is perhaps A N Leonytev's greatest discovery that there are both micro and molar units in any complex process. True in Psychology and true in political economy. Whereas exchange of commodities is an artefact-mediated action, a firm is an activity, a specific aggregate of actions, directed towards the quantitative maximisation of the value of the unit of capital. English is not a perfect language either. : ) The word "consciousness" has the unfortunate connotation of being a mass noun (or continuous substance) whereas it is know only, of course, in individual "consciousnesses" or "minds." But it sounds so clumsy to say "a consciousness." Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 16/10/2017 11:07 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: Haydi, I think Andy does not mean 'one capital' versus 'several capitals', for, if I read Andy adequately, Capital is for him not a unit but rather the whole of which commodity exchange is the unit. Thus, the germ cell of Capital is thus not Capital, or 'a' Capital, which you seem to attribute to Andy; just as I don't think he is arguing that there is consciousness, and then many consciousnesses. So it may be that you two agree more than disagree, judging by your last paragraph. Whether his position on singular and plurals is more or less adequate than another positions, that I leave it up to the discussion. Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? Sent: 16 October 2017 09:45 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Andy Blunden Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Thank you David for your explanation! Though for me it needs more than one read. The point was whether use of activity and activities in Leontiev is a contradiction. Whoever L was and whatever he believed in , he was not so negligent to the point of posing activity first and immediately after that recounting 'activities'. Translation ruled out a committed error. Then such a blundering display must have a justification rather than a misunderstanding in comprehension. In one sense all things are related. The more so with the Monistic View. We have so many corporate and incorporate things , two of them so problematic communication and practical activity since Descartes and we are determined to avoid Dualism and refer and return all phenomena to that same thing , the one substance. In the actuality of the world , there's nothing discrete , that is , absolutely unrelated. Is that pretext for us not to see this unbounded versatility and hues and dues as distinct coloring? Maybe one of the ways was for man to let Nature go unrestrained?? But man also did not come of its own will. The sole way destined or open to Man was of its Nature to engage with the surrounding. To deal with it sensually and subjectively/agently. Then Man in one time interpreted all phenomena as they appeared to him. But he grew up further than his infantile period. He learnt to delve into matters , go deeper and deeper. With one spectacle (plane) he observed how that single substance let its attributes multiply themselves into different shapes and colors and Modes. With another plane of the one spectacle observed the variation of the Modes themselves. I mean Ontology and Epistemology not yet separate from each other as I used a pair of planes for that matter. Then we usually don't use a nail-clipper for alterations and manipulations in Genes. Or devices for Genes for our feeding and nutrition. It is then within these constraints that corporate and incorporate phenomena differ. Singles and plurals differ. Discrete and the indivisible differ. Parts and Moments differ. Wholes and mere entities differ. A process and a product resulting from that process differ. No justification to interchange them because of the use of A in front of them. I wonder if this is true for others too. For me it's difficult to accept to say "this capital that capital" "those 8 capitals united" "capitals of the world dissolved into unanimity". If I'm correct in this , it's , I think , because Capital is a Whole , coming out of a long process of functions and disfunctions , moments of circulations and transient stagnation , booms and boosts and drawbacks and failures. The moment of its conception in the exchange of commodities up to the discovery of the private appropriation of the surplus value to the point of harnessing every means to penetrate each tight corner of the big World. Best Haydi From: David Kellogg To: Andy Blunden ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Monday, 16 October 2017, 2:21:12 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Of course, neither an object nor a process is discrete (or even, as Andy says, "discreet"). Who can tell me where a mountain river ends and the alluvial plain begins? Certainly not Cezanne or the phenomenologists who so loved him. Yet a mountain is most assuredly an object, just as surely as climbing the mountain to ascertain its degree of montagnitude is a process. This last week I've been struggling through the "Curriculum Reforms" wrought by three right wing governments in Norway, Finland, and New Zealand. Like Catalonia, these are all countries where unpopular coalitions of right parties are replacing a much more popular but obviously unsuccessful social democratic coalition of left parties. In Norway and in Finland, the coalition actually includes the far right, neo-fascist, anti-immigrant parties, and in New Zealand it includes the ACT, that is, an "association of consumers and taxpayers" whose main interest is cutting education budgets, starting by making teachers and students fight each other for scarce resources in the form of "block grants". Now, all of these governments are more or less bound by something called DeSeCo, which is short for Describe and Select Competences. This is because right-wing ideology sees education not as a public good but as a commodity, to be judged by tangible results and priced accordingly. This presents a real theoretical problem for right-wingers, because they ALSO see that "flexible labor markets" and "entrepreneurial spirit" means that there isn't any way of deciding on what skills or even what knowledge the "economy of the future" will demand. We can see this in the emphasis on "competence". Competence is not a thing or a process, and it is neither discrete nor discreet. Of course, if you are a linguist, competence is something Chomsky thought of in the sixties, an abstract form of knowledge in a hypothetical native speaker-hearer in an imaginary homogenous speech community. It is "discrete" in the sense of being nowhere and nowhen connectible to performance in any way. It is therefore "discreet" in the sense of being untestable--as soon as you test it, you have a form of performance, not competence. It's like standing in front of a classroom with a picture of a guy swimming and trying to teach the expression "i can swim". What you have in the picture is not "I can swim"; it's manifestly "he is swimming". But in DeSeCo, you get these lists of competences, which are set up as if they were discrete so you can list them on a Powerpoint slide and sell them to ministries of education. And the real selling point is that, on the one hand, because they are all "meta-skills" and "meta-knowledges", they don't have any practical outcome or real commitment to a job and a livelihood. And on the other, they sound terribly powerful when you phrase them as "learning to learn" or "transversal competence" or "meta-cognitive skills" or something like that. Jobs, in other words, are discretionary. After centuries of promising jobs and livelhood in return for school and boredom, the Western economies have decided that sticks are cheaper than carrots, and the thing to do is simply to rule people who don't have educational certificates out of the job market rather than try to provide actual know-how and factual know-that. Here are my four favorites (i.e. the four that we stress in our own curricular reform here in South Korea): interpersonal competence (sociability, the ability to 'be alone with others' as Hughlings Jackson put it) cultural competence (enculturation, the ability to understand traditions, mores, and norms) creative competence (intelligence, innovation, yadda yadda) individual competence (the ability to dress yourself, feed yourself, and show up for an interview where you will not be offered a job) Vygotsky, as usual, has a better idea--it's a mountain. We just turn the DeSeCO PPT upside down. Then we add each competence---freedom, creative intelligence, encultured habits and tastes, and instiinctive sociability--as a superstructure erected on the basis of the previous one: free will (the ability to make choices that are not necessarily intelligent or habitual or instinctive) intelligence (the ability to make choices that are not habitual or instinctive but nevertheless adaptive) enculturation (the ability to make choices that are not instinctive but conform to the choices that have proven successful in the now socialized environment) instinct (the ability to make choices that are responsive to the environment and which conform to the choices that have proven successful in phylogenesis) Are theses objects? Of course, if we say so. And processes? Well, how else could they have come about? What they are not, however, is either "discrete" or "discreet": they are clearly linked to each other, and they are all linked, through the lower layer, to adaptations ot the environment. And there's the rub--where the rubber meets the road. The real question, for our teachers and for our children, is about what will happen to them now that these competences can no longer be redeemed in jobs. Will the anti-Faustian bargain of exchanging your youth for a stable middle-aged livelihood survive? David Kellogg On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: Haydi, you say "AN activity is not a thing ; it's a process." I wonder then what is a thing which is not also a process? (I interpret "thing" as meaning "something discrete," otherwise your objection makes no sense.) The point is that Hegel does not make this dichotomy - every thing is also a process and vice versa. That a process is also discreet is important because it is only thanks to its discreteness that we can cognise the process and in fact only thanks to its discreteness that a process can affect anything else. To speak of processes which are not also discrete is to speak in abstractions. On this point, when Hegel puts ideas above matter, it has to be realised that for Hegel "ideas" are social practices - he is simply place human practice at the centre of human life and its comprehension, rather than the mechanical and chemical processes of Nature. If you think that "ideas" are simply chimera inside our heads, then, of course, Hegel's idealism seems like madness. Yes, all the Marxists have blasted Hegel. As they must. Otherwise they must end up advocates of Constitutional Monarchy. But while Marx uses almost every mention he makes of Hegel to criticise him, often in extreme terms, it can go unnoticed the extent to which in practice Marx follows Hegel in philosophy. Of course Marx is not equal to Hegel, but simple formulae do not contribute to understanding the relation. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 15/10/2017 6:51 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: Andy, Let me first apologize to David Kellog because in others' wandering and perplexity it was he who in his reading of Gramsci's prison letters came across this point and made you not only accept the inappropriateness of Hegel's headstand as Crowning every worldly affair deriving from the People's Heads "Idea" , "Absolute" but also intensifying this point with more examples and references from Engels' "utopian versus genuine socialism" on your part. Of course you've been helping us on many occasions and you're very welcome for this nothing to be denied. At this point we have no problem with translation. Leontiev meant it. Suppose that ANL does not know "individual" which is very ambiguous because in what then one should seek the embodiment of the "particular" and if one takes the very particular as individual , then everything gets mixed up . Then what about you who stick firmly on individual discrete detached activities as an objection to Sasha's sole ACTIVITY as theoretical understanding. As you well know even AN activity is not a thing ; it's a process. And you once distinguished between GENERAL WORK ACTIVITY and LABOUR ACTIVITY or VALORIZATION ACTIVITY which was quite right and timely though you recently gave differing definitions in no way harmonious to your previous definitions. But the main problem is blending clarity in expression with concrete in theory. No doubt you're a Fan of Hegel. I should repeat myself : Hegel is a hero of theoretical concepts. In theorizing , and for him to explicate the Essence of Phenomena , he begins with apparently concrete things as ABSTRACTS finally reaches CONCRETE UNIVERSALS as concepts. And here we again very surprisingly see you put your finger upon what you should have known in person is contrary to your own erudition. Turning Hegel down as believing in discrete abstracts. And now to his son's comment : What individual are you pursuing? Your Hegel sees phenomena in their relations. According to him and also according to ANL ACTIVITY as a unit of Life is Molar non-additive. He even does not see operations as single acts. It's a matter of the angle of vision not detachment and concreteness. If his son had talked of concreteness in moments of activity , then you were right in your objections and oppositions. You please give us your last definition of activity here (not in lengthy references) so that we can have a discerning option. So far to remove the problem we should accept operations are separately and independently carried out ; actions in their own are carried out ; activities are carried out arbitrarily. And these are done to the realization of man as the ensemble of social relations based on some infrastructure. Hegel's metaphor has been thrown back at him by Marx , Engels , Lenin , Vygotsky , Ilyenko , and many others. If you like to stand above all Giants of Marxism , it's something perfectly and absolutely Personal as you're speaking out loud! Then why give us so many references. Best Haydi P.S. Alfredo! Though you have my previous private response concerning the matters you pose I see myself accountable to rewrite them to the Public. Thanks! ------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Andy Blunden *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu *Sent:* Sunday, 15 October 2017, 5:35:40 *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Haydi, partly the problem with ANL's philosophy-as-we-know-it is simply a product of its translation into English. But partly it is also in his philosophy. As Victor Kaptelinin first pointed out (so far as I know), ANL knows the universal and the particular but he does not know the individual. And his son's comment that ANL did not conceive of Activity as being discrete proves this to be the case. Thus his concept of Activity is not a fully concrete concept. And this is not a product of translation. As David Kellogg has kindly pointed out to me, it was Hegel who actually first introduced this metaphor of people "walking (or standing) on their heads." Personally, I don't think it has ever helped anyone understand the defect of Hegel's philosophy to throw this metaphor back at him. As demonstrated in this issue (the concept of activity) it was Hegel who understood that a concept must have all three moments - universal, particular and individual. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 15/10/2017 9:24 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: Dear Mike, Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an activist for his concreteness and clarifications is crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes , Parts , and Moments. He personally provided us with examples from Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they convert Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced with the same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most valuable contribution) does not begin with the individual case in isolation which phenomenologically speaking (in contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not obtained because one instance is considered detached from all relations and its subservience to the service of the Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is particular in some feature/s. And these particulars are essential. With other particulars in other individuals they are related actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense , this whole could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life itself. Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is , with category and concept only therefore , following Marx and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again on his feet (not that the firmament to that time did put "idea" on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on their heads but to put them again headstand thinking and acting with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just with their brains. Then taking all options in translation even that of a Machine into consideration it does not seem to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of activities thereafter. These activities are those arising from the properties of versatile objects in turn arising from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual activities as moments with the broadest idea of the Monistic Substantial Modes or States in Philosophical terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn integrate and are dissolved into Monism of Substance. Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one Substance) is already there with the organism actively and spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own , positioning its due object and moving along its contours and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to itself , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with a huge gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of consciousness , now apparently ascending to "wording" and "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration) further "communication" as something indispensable and necessary and inevitable to the realization of life affairs. Best Haydi From: mike cole > To: Andy Blunden >; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Cc: Alexander Surmava >; ivan-dgf >; Ivan Uemlianin >; Haydi Zulfei > Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50 Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.Could someone post the Russian text next to the English so that it is possible to compare it with the translation? I spent several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally defeated me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra rubles in my pocket. Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us a "true" translation. mike On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: The Progress Publishers English translation of "Activity and Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, material life of the material subject. In the narrower sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a unit of life, mediated by mental reflection, by an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the subject in the objective world. In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The Development of Mind" we have: Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an organism?s activity; the different activities that realise its diverse vital relations with the surrounding reality are essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively different] types of activity according to the difference in their objects. By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean simply "category." The second does the same, but in addition makes it evident that the plural does not refer to different activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the possibility of forming a true concept of activity altogether. With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is simply that "such an initial *category* can only be object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. Andy ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics. org/ablunden/index.htm On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: Dear Andy! I am glad that our communication was resumed after many years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and files and found that the problem of "object oriented activity OR communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is serious and it deserves to return to it today. Last year I was close to being silent forever. Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my descendants :-). I will begin with honest recognition that I do not understand your question. What means the distinction between singular and plural number in your remark? Could you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of reflexive activity" (that is the title of my dissertation work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's "Theory of Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, having understood the theoretic meaning of your claims to AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily understand the essence of your objections to me. In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a particular empirical case of its manifestation. Therefore, object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just like Matter, Nature, or Substance. Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come across only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old philosophers and that only the numerous individual "atomic facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar positivism and empiricism. However, all of this may not apply to your position ... I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. Best wishes Sasha ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden > ?????(?): I'll ask Sasha a question. Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial category can only be object-oriented activity" as it stands, in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be that you are translating it from a Russian statement that is correct. Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in when I say "every activity has an object." But in your expression above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and unless you are a religious person is not something which can have a specific object. All English translations of A N Leontyev make this mistake which has caused no end of confusion among English-speakers. Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," just as you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." Andy ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics. org/ablunden/index.htm On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: Dear Sasha, all, thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding response. I think you are right in your assertion that we are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. However, one can see in the lack of response by other members?? that not everyone has the privilege of the time it requires to go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce and I hope it is/will be appreciated as such. If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I quote from your response: "If we want to make our choice of the initial category, without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will choose the one of the two categories from which one can derive the entire diversity of human life, including another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that such an initial category can only be object-oriented activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" If we stay within the boundaries of the framework according to which we are looking of the most original germ cell, the one from which all others can be developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree on that. But ??once we are back to the development of a concrete Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact that, for any child to participate in human forms of object-oriented activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into those forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you describe, is this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, or is it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? As moderator, I should stop there and let others answer (which I hope some do). As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of teaching deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this is only possible through *involvement* in collective activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is only possible in and through object-oriented activity). But then, is not the teaching, the instructional aspect of the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all those attributes that you just called 'spiritually uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get collective activity without them? On this, and precisely in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of Man", Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in that case that communication is included in activity and is its essential component: without relation to another person(s), activity is impossible' (144). Although I not always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I can't see how he can be wrong. So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the category of object-oriented activity, is most primary. Let me also note that ?there are other authors who have developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom affectivity is the concrete 'essence of auto-affection' ( https://www.amazon.com/ Incarnation-Philosophy- Studies-Phenomenology- Existential/dp/0810131269 ) As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I wonder whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity and communication. Is not the distinction just an artefact of a partial understanding of what it means activity and what it means communicating. I still feel that communication, in the sense of addressivity that Mikhailov describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I don't see how any practical activity can have any sense (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are talking about; one machines could perform on their own without consciousness. ? Best wishes, Alfredo ______________________________ __ From: Alexander Surmava > Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu edu>; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole Subject: Object oriented activity and communication Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, touching on the most fundamental categories. But before proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica aside) :-) Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, based on the general principles accepted in its framework and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a common, unifying conception are usually considered the theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the interpretation of these concepts. For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is possible to consider both objective activity and communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? I am convinced that without answering these and similar fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry and without answering them in the most general form, we are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, based on which we can practically solve socially significant problems, let us say, create a consistently democratic education system, we draw everyone to the interesting only for us theoretical verbiagemultitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between Vygotsky and Leontiev. Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too to reflect on how to help find the path to education and culture for the children of poor migrants from Central Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. Agitprop sticks in my teeth too, and I?d rather compose romances for you - more profit in it and more charm. But I subdued myself, setting my heel on the throat of my own song. Vladimir Mayakovski ? ??? ???????? ? ????? ?????, ? ??? ?? ???????? ??????? ?? ??? ? ???????? ??? ? ??????????. ?? ? ???? ??????, ????????? ?? ????? ??????????? ?????. ???????? ?????????? Among other things, such an over and over again forced return to the very foundation makes it difficult to understand even these very basics, for it forces us to return to the most abstract level all the time, literally stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract to the concrete. Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions about how to understand the principle of interaction as such and about the relationship of object oriented activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed answers to these questions have been formulated by me in my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? ????????????academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is available in English. It was even sent in published in English international journal... but for some strange reason was not published then or later. So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, especially since I can answer by quoting my old text https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS. But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" is also an interaction, but that is its highest, essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense that one can not in principle separate out its active and passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in the process of positing of an object one side is active, subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There are many interesting differences between them, but let us return to this somehow later. In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation work of 1988: ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant leaves (with his telescope). That is to say that living, active or predmet relation as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital activity. Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into contact with its living subjectivity. To put it differently, we can find not the slightest trace of predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive relation.? Now about the object oriented activity and communication, and it does not matter whether in the verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's "addressing" to another person. Which of these two categories should be considered primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and remains the central problem of theoretical psychology associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and Ilyenkov. To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want to build scientific psychology in accordance with the famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers believed that the method of ascent, the method of "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one thing - either activity or communication. And at first glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations.. " And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely scientific psychology consisted only in the need to reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely difficult situation, because the classics left us with different meanings on this topic and with which of them it is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, and with which in the second, it would still have to be solved by ourselves. So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was AN Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" were for communication. Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something rather indecent. The end of the discussion between supporters of "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of Leontief's psychology department was appointed a well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in the ideological department of the Central Committee of CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE could not reverse the situation too. Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to "communication" and "activity." If we want to make our choice of the initial category, without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will choose the one of the two categories from which one can derive the entire diversity of human life, including another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that such an initial category can only be object-oriented activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and the entire affective sphere associated with it is first generated by objective activity at the most basic level, in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. And, finally, it demonstrates how the external reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, together and practically producing their own lives, assumes a specifically human character, being a reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" communication and the affective side of life are taken not as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s REFLEXIVE side. The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the relation of objective activity and "communication". In the same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, any other, psychology. ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????, ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable place for introducing such fundamental concepts, therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large English text https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS and read it to the end :-). ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? ????????????academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? ??????????? ???????? https://www.avramus.com/app/ download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 . Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, touching on the most fundamental categories. But before proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica aside) :-) Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, based on the general principles accepted in its framework and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a common, unifying conception are usually considered the theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the interpretation of these concepts. For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is possible to consider both objective activity and communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? I am convinced that without answering these and similar fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry and without answering them in the most general form, we are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, based on which we can practically solve socially significant problems, let us say, create a consistently democratic education system, we draw everyone to the interesting only for us theoretical verbiagemultitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between Vygotsky and Leontiev. Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too to reflect on how to help find the path to education and culture for the children of poor migrants from Central Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. Agitprop sticks in my teeth too, and I?d rather compose romances for you - more profit in it and more charm. But I subdued myself, setting my heel on the throat of my own song. Vladimir Mayakovski ? ??? ???????? ? ????? ?????, ? ??? ?? ???????? ??????? ?? ??? ? ???????? ??? ? ??????????. ?? ? ???? ??????, ????????? ?? ????? ??????????? ?????. ???????? ?????????? Among other things, such an over and over again forced return to the very foundation makes it difficult to understand even these very basics, for it forces us to return to the most abstract level all the time, literally stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract to the concrete. Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions about how to understand the principle of interaction as such and about the relationship of object oriented activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed answers to these questions have been formulated by me in my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? ????????????academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is available in English. It was even sent in published in English international journal... but for some strange reason was not published then or later. So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, especially since I can answer by quoting my old text https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS. But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" is also an interaction, but that is its highest, essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense that one can not in principle separate out its active and passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in the process of positing of an object one side is active, subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There are many interesting differences between them, but let us return to this somehow later. In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation work of 1988: ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant leaves (with his telescope). That is to say that living, active or predmet relation as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital activity. Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into contact with its living subjectivity. To put it differently, we can find not the slightest trace of predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive relation.? Now about the object oriented activity and communication, and it does not matter whether in the verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's "addressing" to another person. Which of these two categories should be considered primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and remains the central problem of theoretical psychology associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and Ilyenkov. To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want to build scientific psychology in accordance with the famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers believed that the method of ascent, the method of "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one thing - either activity or communication. And at first glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations.. " And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely scientific psychology consisted only in the need to reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely difficult situation, because the classics left us with different meanings on this topic and with which of them it is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, and with which in the second, it would still have to be solved by ourselves. So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas "Leningraders" were for "communication". Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a literal reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something rather indecent. The end of the discussion between supporters of "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of Leontief's psychology department was appointed a well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in the ideological department of the Central Committee of CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE could not reverse the situation too. Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to "communication" and "activity." If we want to make our choice of the initial category, without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will choose the one of the two categories from which one can derive the entire diversity of human life, including another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that such an initial category can only be object-oriented activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the object oriented activity, which is an attribute property of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we will never get life or object oriented activity even with the greatest diligence. And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and the entire affective sphere associated with it is first generated by objective activity at the most basic level, in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. And, finally, it demonstrates how the external reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, together and practically producing their own lives, assumes a specifically human character, being a reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" communication and the affective side of life are taken not as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s REFLEXIVE side. The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the relation of objective activity and "communication". In the same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, any other, psychology. The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable place for introducing such fundamental concepts, therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large English text https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS and read it to the end :-). The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? ????????????academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short English one https://www.avramus.com/app/ download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. Sasha From ablunden@mira.net Mon Oct 16 05:49:10 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 23:49:10 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> Capitals are units of capital. The only whole is the world market, within which units of capital grow and shrink, consume one another and so on. A capital (i.e. a firm) is not a "whole" in the true sense of the word, and I would have an issue with anyone who wants to treat a firm as a "system of activity" if there were any implication that this means a "closed system." Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 16/10/2017 11:42 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > Your point in the first paragraph is what I was trying to > convey to Haidy, to see if there is room there for common > ground between your positions. ? > > Alfredo > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Andy Blunden > *Sent:* 16 October 2017 14:39 > *To:* Alfredo Jornet Gil; xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity and communication > > > Yes, yes, Alfredo! But what is often overlooked is that > the aim of Marx's research is not commodity exchange (in > itself a harmless business) but capital. But he does not > *start* with capital, but goes down to its roots, its > source, in the circulation of commodities. > > Compare with Vygotsky's analysis of the intellect > (thinking). Word meanings are *not* the subject matter of > Vygotsky's research (who gives a damn!?), but concepts! > But he does not start with concepts, but goes down to its > roots, its source, in speech arising in collaborative > activity. Actually, AN Leontyev missed this, as can be > seen in his trenchant attack on Vygotsky in his ?Study of > the Environment in the Pedological Works of L. S. Vygotsky". > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 16/10/2017 11:31 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >> Damn! Commodity exchange is the unit of burgeons society... I have to study more! Thanks Andy >> >> "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as ?an immense accumulation of commodities,?[1] its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity" >> >> Alfredo >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden >> Sent: 16 October 2017 14:22 >> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >> >> Just to illustrate that I am being an orthodox Marxist here, >> from Chapter 10, Vol. 3 of Capital: >> >> "In the case of capitals of average, or approximately >> average, composition, the price of production is thus >> the same or almost the same as the value, and the profit >> the same as the surplus-value produced by them. All >> other capitals, of whatever composition, tend toward >> this average under pressure of competition. But since >> the capitals of average composition are of the same, or >> approximately the same, structure as the average social >> capital, all capitals have the tendency, regardless of >> the surplus-value produced by them, to realize the >> average profit, rather than their own surplus-value in >> the price of their commodity, i.e., to realize the >> prices of production." >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 16/10/2017 11:18 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >>> No, Alfredo. A unit of capital is a firm (or company). It is >>> impossible to explain the formation of a rate of profit (at >>> least as Marx does in /Capital/) without the conception of >>> units of capital, namely, firms and the competition between >>> them. Firms are of course, what Engestrom would call a >>> "system of activity" or I would call a "project" and >>> Leontyev almost could call an activity. But in the USSR >>> there were no firms, only the state. It is perhaps A N >>> Leonytev's greatest discovery that there are both micro and >>> molar units in any complex process. True in Psychology and >>> true in political economy. Whereas exchange of commodities >>> is an artefact-mediated action, a firm is an activity, a >>> specific aggregate of actions, directed towards the >>> quantitative maximisation of the value of the unit of capital. >>> >>> English is not a perfect language either. : ) The word >>> "consciousness" has the unfortunate connotation of being a >>> mass noun (or continuous substance) whereas it is know only, >>> of course, in individual "consciousnesses" or "minds." But >>> it sounds so clumsy to say "a consciousness." >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 16/10/2017 11:07 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>>> Haydi, >>>> >>>> I think Andy does not mean 'one capital' versus 'several capitals', for, if I read Andy adequately, Capital is for him not a unit but rather the whole of which commodity exchange is the unit. Thus, the germ cell of Capital is thus not Capital, or 'a' Capital, which you seem to attribute to Andy; just as I don't think he is arguing that there is consciousness, and then many consciousnesses. So it may be that you two agree more than disagree, judging by your last paragraph. >>>> >>>> Whether his position on singular and plurals is more or less adequate than another positions, that I leave it up to the discussion. >>>> >>>> Alfredo >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? >>>> Sent: 16 October 2017 09:45 >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Andy Blunden >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >>>> >>>> Thank you David for your explanation! Though for me it needs more than one read. >>>> >>>> The point was whether use of activity and activities in Leontiev is a contradiction. Whoever L was and whatever he believed in , he was not so negligent to the point of posing activity first and immediately after that recounting 'activities'. Translation ruled out a committed error. Then such a blundering display must have a justification rather than a misunderstanding in comprehension. >>>> >>>> In one sense all things are related. The more so with the Monistic View. We have so many corporate and incorporate things , two of them so problematic communication and practical activity since Descartes and we are determined to avoid Dualism and refer and return all phenomena to that same thing , the one substance. In the actuality of the world , there's nothing discrete , that is , absolutely unrelated. Is that pretext for us not to see this unbounded versatility and hues and dues as distinct coloring? Maybe one of the ways was for man to let Nature go unrestrained?? But man also did not come of its own will. >>>> >>>> The sole way destined or open to Man was of its Nature to engage with the surrounding. To deal with it sensually and subjectively/agently. Then Man in one time interpreted all phenomena as they appeared to him. But he grew up further than his infantile period. He learnt to delve into matters , go deeper and deeper. With one spectacle (plane) he observed how that single substance let its attributes multiply themselves into different shapes and colors and Modes. With another plane of the one spectacle observed the variation of the Modes themselves. I mean Ontology and Epistemology not yet separate from each other as I used a pair of planes for that matter. >>>> >>>> Then we usually don't use a nail-clipper for alterations and manipulations in Genes. Or devices for Genes for our feeding and nutrition. It is then within these constraints that corporate and incorporate phenomena differ. Singles and plurals differ. Discrete and the indivisible differ. Parts and Moments differ. Wholes and mere entities differ. A process and a product resulting from that process differ. No justification to interchange them because of the use of A in front of them. >>>> >>>> I wonder if this is true for others too. For me it's difficult to accept to say "this capital that capital" "those 8 capitals united" "capitals of the world dissolved into unanimity". If I'm correct in this , it's , I think , because Capital is a Whole , coming out of a long process of functions and disfunctions , moments of circulations and transient stagnation , booms and boosts and drawbacks and failures. The moment of its conception in the exchange of commodities up to the discovery of the private appropriation of the surplus value to the point of harnessing every means to penetrate each tight corner of the big World. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Haydi >>>> >>>> >>>> From: David Kellogg >>>> To: Andy Blunden ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >>>> Sent: Monday, 16 October 2017, 2:21:12 >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >>>> >>>> Of course, neither an object nor a process is discrete (or even, as Andy >>>> says, "discreet"). Who can tell me where a mountain river ends and the >>>> alluvial plain begins? Certainly not Cezanne or the phenomenologists who so >>>> loved him. Yet a mountain is most assuredly an object, just as surely >>>> as climbing the mountain to ascertain its degree of montagnitude is a >>>> process. >>>> >>>> This last week I've been struggling through the "Curriculum Reforms" >>>> wrought by three right wing governments in Norway, Finland, and New >>>> Zealand. Like Catalonia, these are all countries where unpopular coalitions >>>> of right parties are replacing a much more popular but obviously >>>> unsuccessful social democratic coalition of left parties. In Norway and in >>>> Finland, the coalition actually includes the far right, neo-fascist, >>>> anti-immigrant parties, and in New Zealand it includes the ACT, that is, an >>>> "association of consumers and taxpayers" whose main interest is cutting >>>> education budgets, starting by making teachers and students fight each >>>> other for scarce resources in the form of "block grants". >>>> >>>> Now, all of these governments are more or less bound by something called >>>> DeSeCo, which is short for Describe and Select Competences. This is because >>>> right-wing ideology sees education not as a public good but as a commodity, >>>> to be judged by tangible results and priced accordingly. This presents a >>>> real theoretical problem for right-wingers, because they ALSO see that >>>> "flexible labor markets" and "entrepreneurial spirit" means that there >>>> isn't any way of deciding on what skills or even what knowledge the >>>> "economy of the future" will demand. >>>> >>>> We can see this in the emphasis on "competence". Competence is not a thing >>>> or a process, and it is neither discrete nor discreet. Of course, if you >>>> are a linguist, competence is something Chomsky thought of in the sixties, >>>> an abstract form of knowledge in a hypothetical native speaker-hearer in an >>>> imaginary homogenous speech community. It is "discrete" in the sense of >>>> being nowhere and nowhen connectible to performance in any way. It is >>>> therefore "discreet" in the sense of being untestable--as soon as you test >>>> it, you have a form of performance, not competence. It's like standing in >>>> front of a classroom with a picture of a guy swimming and trying to teach >>>> the expression "i can swim". What you have in the picture is not "I can >>>> swim"; it's manifestly "he is swimming". >>>> >>>> But in DeSeCo, you get these lists of competences, which are set up as if >>>> they were discrete so you can list them on a Powerpoint slide and sell them >>>> to ministries of education. And the real selling point is that, on the one >>>> hand, because they are all "meta-skills" and "meta-knowledges", they don't >>>> have any practical outcome or real commitment to a job and a livelihood. >>>> And on the other, they sound terribly powerful when you phrase them as >>>> "learning to learn" or "transversal competence" or "meta-cognitive skills" >>>> or something like that. Jobs, in other words, are discretionary. After >>>> centuries of promising jobs and livelhood in return for school and boredom, >>>> the Western economies have decided that sticks are cheaper than carrots, >>>> and the thing to do is simply to rule people who don't have educational >>>> certificates out of the job market rather than try to provide >>>> actual know-how and factual know-that. >>>> >>>> Here are my four favorites (i.e. the four that we stress in our own >>>> curricular reform here in South Korea): >>>> >>>> interpersonal competence (sociability, the ability to 'be alone with >>>> others' as Hughlings Jackson put it) >>>> cultural competence (enculturation, the ability to understand traditions, >>>> mores, and norms) >>>> creative competence (intelligence, innovation, yadda yadda) >>>> individual competence (the ability to dress yourself, feed yourself, and >>>> show up for an interview where you will not be offered a job) >>>> >>>> Vygotsky, as usual, has a better idea--it's a mountain. We just turn the >>>> DeSeCO PPT upside down. Then we add each competence---freedom, creative >>>> intelligence, encultured habits and tastes, and instiinctive >>>> sociability--as a superstructure erected on the basis of the previous one: >>>> >>>> free will (the ability to make choices that are not necessarily intelligent >>>> or habitual or instinctive) >>>> intelligence (the ability to make choices that are not habitual or >>>> instinctive but nevertheless adaptive) >>>> enculturation (the ability to make choices that are not instinctive but >>>> conform to the choices that have proven successful in the now socialized >>>> environment) >>>> instinct (the ability to make choices that are responsive to the >>>> environment and which conform to the choices that have proven successful in >>>> phylogenesis) >>>> >>>> Are theses objects? Of course, if we say so. And processes? Well, how else >>>> could they have come about? What they are not, however, is either >>>> "discrete" or "discreet": they are clearly linked to each other, and they >>>> are all linked, through the lower layer, to adaptations ot the environment. >>>> >>>> And there's the rub--where the rubber meets the road. The real question, >>>> for our teachers and for our children, is about what will happen to them >>>> now that these competences can no longer be redeemed in jobs. Will the >>>> anti-Faustian bargain of exchanging your youth for a >>>> stable middle-aged livelihood survive? >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >>>> >>>>> Haydi, you say "AN activity is not a thing ; it's a >>>>> process." I wonder then what is a thing which is not also a >>>>> process? (I interpret "thing" as meaning "something >>>>> discrete," otherwise your objection makes no sense.) The >>>>> point is that Hegel does not make this dichotomy - every >>>>> thing is also a process and vice versa. That a process is >>>>> also discreet is important because it is only thanks to its >>>>> discreteness that we can cognise the process and in fact >>>>> only thanks to its discreteness that a process can affect >>>>> anything else. To speak of processes which are not also >>>>> discrete is to speak in abstractions. >>>>> >>>>> On this point, when Hegel puts ideas above matter, it has to >>>>> be realised that for Hegel "ideas" are social practices - he >>>>> is simply place human practice at the centre of human life >>>>> and its comprehension, rather than the mechanical and >>>>> chemical processes of Nature. If you think that "ideas" are >>>>> simply chimera inside our heads, then, of course, Hegel's >>>>> idealism seems like madness. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, all the Marxists have blasted Hegel. As they must. >>>>> Otherwise they must end up advocates of Constitutional >>>>> Monarchy. But while Marx uses almost every mention he makes >>>>> of Hegel to criticise him, often in extreme terms, it can go >>>>> unnoticed the extent to which in practice Marx follows Hegel >>>>> in philosophy. Of course Marx is not equal to Hegel, but >>>>> simple formulae do not contribute to understanding the relation. >>>>> >>>>> Andy >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>> On 15/10/2017 6:51 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: >>>>>> Andy, >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me first apologize to David Kellog because in others' >>>>>> wandering and perplexity it was he who in his reading of >>>>>> Gramsci's prison letters came across this point and made >>>>>> you not only accept the inappropriateness of Hegel's >>>>>> headstand as Crowning every worldly affair deriving from >>>>>> the People's Heads "Idea" , "Absolute" but also >>>>>> intensifying this point with more examples and references >>>>>> from Engels' "utopian versus genuine socialism" on your >>>>>> part. Of course you've been helping us on many occasions >>>>>> and you're very welcome for this nothing to be denied. >>>>>> >>>>>> At this point we have no problem with translation. >>>>>> Leontiev meant it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Suppose that ANL does not know "individual" which is very >>>>>> ambiguous because in what then one should seek the >>>>>> embodiment of the "particular" and if one takes the very >>>>>> particular as individual , then everything gets mixed up . >>>>>> Then what about you who stick firmly on individual >>>>>> discrete detached activities as an objection to Sasha's >>>>>> sole ACTIVITY as theoretical understanding. >>>>>> >>>>>> As you well know even AN activity is not a thing ; it's a >>>>>> process. And you once distinguished between GENERAL WORK >>>>>> ACTIVITY and LABOUR ACTIVITY or VALORIZATION ACTIVITY >>>>>> which was quite right and timely though you recently gave >>>>>> differing definitions in no way harmonious to your >>>>>> previous definitions. But the main problem is blending >>>>>> clarity in expression with concrete in theory. No doubt >>>>>> you're a Fan of Hegel. I should repeat myself : Hegel is a >>>>>> hero of theoretical concepts. In theorizing , and for him >>>>>> to explicate the Essence of Phenomena , he begins with >>>>>> apparently concrete things as ABSTRACTS finally reaches >>>>>> CONCRETE UNIVERSALS as concepts. And here we again very >>>>>> surprisingly see you put your finger upon what you should >>>>>> have known in person is contrary to your own erudition. >>>>>> Turning Hegel down as believing in discrete abstracts. >>>>>> >>>>>> And now to his son's comment : What individual are you >>>>>> pursuing? Your Hegel sees phenomena in their relations. >>>>>> According to him and also according to ANL ACTIVITY as a >>>>>> unit of Life is Molar non-additive. He even does not see >>>>>> operations as single acts. It's a matter of the angle of >>>>>> vision not detachment and concreteness. If his son had >>>>>> talked of concreteness in moments of activity , then you >>>>>> were right in your objections and oppositions. You please >>>>>> give us your last definition of activity here (not in >>>>>> lengthy references) so that we can have a discerning >>>>>> option. >>>>>> So far to remove the problem we should accept operations >>>>>> are separately and independently carried out ; actions in >>>>>> their own are carried out ; activities are carried out >>>>>> arbitrarily. And these are done to the realization of man >>>>>> as the ensemble of social relations based on some >>>>>> infrastructure. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hegel's metaphor has been thrown back at him by Marx , >>>>>> Engels , Lenin , Vygotsky , Ilyenko , and many others. If >>>>>> you like to stand above all Giants of Marxism , it's >>>>>> something perfectly and absolutely Personal as you're >>>>>> speaking out loud! Then why give us so many references. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> >>>>>> Haydi >>>>>> >>>>>> P.S. Alfredo! Though you have my previous private response >>>>>> concerning the matters you pose I see myself accountable >>>>>> to rewrite them to the Public. Thanks! >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> *From:* Andy Blunden >>>>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, 15 October 2017, 5:35:40 >>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity >>>>>> and communication >>>>>> >>>>>> Haydi, partly the problem with ANL's >>>>>> philosophy-as-we-know-it is simply a product of its >>>>>> translation into English. But partly it is also in his >>>>>> philosophy. As Victor Kaptelinin first pointed out (so far >>>>>> as I know), ANL knows the universal and the particular but >>>>>> he does not know the individual. And his son's comment that >>>>>> ANL did not conceive of Activity as being discrete proves >>>>>> this to be the case. Thus his concept of Activity is not a >>>>>> fully concrete concept. And this is not a product of >>>>>> translation. >>>>>> >>>>>> As David Kellogg has kindly pointed out to me, it was Hegel >>>>>> who actually first introduced this metaphor of people >>>>>> "walking (or standing) on their heads." Personally, I don't >>>>>> think it has ever helped anyone understand the defect of >>>>>> Hegel's philosophy to throw this metaphor back at him. As >>>>>> demonstrated in this issue (the concept of activity) it was >>>>>> Hegel who understood that a concept must have all three >>>>>> moments - universal, particular and individual. >>>>>> >>>>>> Andy >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>> On 15/10/2017 9:24 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: >>>>>>> Dear Mike, >>>>>>> Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an >>>>>> activist for his concreteness and clarifications is >>>>>> crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot >>>>>> ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes , Parts , >>>>>> and Moments. He personally provided us with examples from >>>>>> Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they convert >>>>>> Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced with the >>>>>> same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most >>>>>> valuable contribution) does not begin with the individual >>>>>> case in isolation which phenomenologically speaking (in >>>>>> contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for >>>>>> appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not obtained >>>>>> because one instance is considered detached from all >>>>>> relations and its subservience to the service of the >>>>>> Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is particular in >>>>>> some feature/s. And these particulars are essential. With >>>>>> other particulars in other individuals they are related >>>>>> actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense , this whole >>>>>> could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life itself. >>>>>> Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is , >>>>>> with category and concept only therefore , following Marx >>>>>> and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again on his >>>>>> feet (not that the firmament to that time did put "idea" >>>>>> on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on their >>>>>> heads but to put them again headstand thinking and acting >>>>>> with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just >>>>>> with their brains. Then taking all options in translation >>>>>> even that of a Machine into consideration it does not seem >>>>>> to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of >>>>>> Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of >>>>>> activities thereafter. These activities are those arising >>>>>> from the properties of versatile objects in turn arising >>>>>> from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile >>>>>> needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think >>>>>> Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual >>>>>> activities as moments with the broadest idea of the >>>>>> Monistic Substantial Modes or States in Philosophical >>>>>> terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn integrate and >>>>>> are dissolved into Monism of Substance. >>>>>>> Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche >>>>>> (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one >>>>>> Substance) is already there with the organism actively and >>>>>> spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own , >>>>>> positioning its due object and moving along its contours >>>>>> and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to itself >>>>>> , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and >>>>>> bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as >>>>>> novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with >>>>>> Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with a huge >>>>>> gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of >>>>>> consciousness , now apparently ascending to "wording" and >>>>>> "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration) further >>>>>> "communication" as something indispensable and necessary >>>>>> and inevitable to the realization of life affairs. >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> Haydi >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: mike cole >>>>> > >>>>>>> To: Andy Blunden >>>>> >; "eXtended Mind, Culture, >>>>>> Activity" >>>>> > >>>>>>> Cc: Alexander Surmava >>>>> >; ivan-dgf >>>>>> >; Ivan >>>>>> Uemlianin >; >>>>>> Haydi Zulfei >>>>> > >>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50 >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented >>>>>> activity and communication >>>>>>> Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.Could someone post >>>>>> the Russian text next to the English so that it is >>>>>> possible to compare it with the translation? I spent >>>>>> several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of >>>>>> Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally defeated >>>>>> me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra rubles in >>>>>> my pocket. >>>>>>> Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us >>>>>> a "true" translation. >>>>>>> mike >>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> The Progress Publishers English translation of "Activity and >>>>>>> Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of >>>>>>> Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, >>>>>>> material life of the material subject. In the narrower >>>>>>> sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a unit of >>>>>>> life, mediated by mental reflection, by >>>>>>> an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the >>>>>>> subject in the objective world. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The >>>>>>> Development of Mind" we have: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an >>>>>>> organism?s activity; the different activities that realise >>>>>>> its diverse vital relations with the surrounding reality are >>>>>>> essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore >>>>>>> differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively >>>>>>> different] types of activity according to the difference in >>>>>>> their objects. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses >>>>>>> "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has >>>>>>> been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for >>>>>>> English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean simply >>>>>>> "category." The second does the same, but in addition makes >>>>>>> it evident that the plural does not refer to different >>>>>>> activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the >>>>>>> possibility of forming a true concept of activity >>>>>> altogether. >>>>>>> With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is >>>>>>> simply that "such an initial *category* can only be >>>>>>> object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing >>>>>>> that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, >>>>>>> even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics. >>>>>> org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>> On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: >>>>>>>> Dear Andy! >>>>>>>> I am glad that our communication was resumed after many >>>>>>>> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and files >>>>>>>> and found that the problem of "object oriented activity OR >>>>>>>> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before >>>>>>>> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is serious and >>>>>>>> it deserves to return to it today. >>>>>>>> Last year I was close to being silent forever. >>>>>>>> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed >>>>>>>> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the >>>>>>>> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my >>>>>>>> theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my >>>>>>>> descendants :-). >>>>>>>> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not >>>>>>>> understand your question. What means the distinction >>>>>>>> between singular and plural number in your remark? Could >>>>>>>> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the >>>>>>>> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my >>>>>>>> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, >>>>>>>> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of >>>>>>>> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my dissertation >>>>>>>> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's "Theory of >>>>>>>> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, >>>>>>>> having understood the theoretic meaning of your claims to >>>>>>>> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily >>>>>>>> understand the essence of your objections to me. >>>>>>>> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I >>>>>>>> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a >>>>>>>> particular empirical case of its manifestation. Therefore, >>>>>>>> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just like >>>>>>>> Matter, Nature, or Substance. >>>>>>>> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come across >>>>>>>> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its >>>>>>>> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the >>>>>>>> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old >>>>>>>> philosophers and that only the numerous individual "atomic >>>>>>>> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really >>>>>>>> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar >>>>>>>> positivism and empiricism. >>>>>>>> However, all of this may not apply to your position ... >>>>>>>> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. >>>>>>>> Best wishes >>>>>>>> Sasha >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> > ?????(?): >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'll ask Sasha a question. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial >>>>>>>> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it >>>>>> stands, >>>>>>>> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be >>>>>> that you >>>>>>>> are translating it from a Russian statement that is >>>>>> correct. >>>>>>>> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in when I >>>>>>>> say "every activity has an object." But in your expression >>>>>>>> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and >>>>>> unless >>>>>>>> you are a religious person is not something which can >>>>>> have a >>>>>>>> specific object. All English translations of A N Leontyev >>>>>>>> make this mistake which has caused no end of confusion >>>>>> among >>>>>>>> English-speakers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," just as >>>>>>>> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics. >>>>>> org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>>>>>>>> Dear Sasha, all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding >>>>>>>> response. I think you are right in your assertion that we >>>>>>>> are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of >>>>>>>> CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. However, one >>>>>>>> can see in the lack of response by other members?? that >>>>>>>> not everyone has the privilege of the time it requires to >>>>>>>> go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing >>>>>>>> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce and I >>>>>>>> hope it is/will be appreciated as such. >>>>>>>>> If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I quote >>>>>>>> from your response: >>>>>>>>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>>>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>>>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>>>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" >>>>>>>>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework >>>>>>>> according to which we are looking of the most original >>>>>>>> germ cell, the one from which all others can be >>>>>>>> developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I >>>>>>>> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree on >>>>>> that. >>>>>>>>> But ??once we are back to the development of a concrete >>>>>>>> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact that, for >>>>>>>> any child to participate in human forms of object-oriented >>>>>>>> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented >>>>>>>> activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular >>>>>>>> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into those >>>>>>>> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category >>>>>>>> devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with >>>>>>>> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you describe, is >>>>>>>> this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, or is >>>>>>>> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? >>>>>>>>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others answer >>>>>>>> (which I hope some do). >>>>>>>>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in >>>>>>>> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of teaching >>>>>>>> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this >>>>>>>> is only possible through *involvement* in collective >>>>>>>> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary >>>>>>>> over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is >>>>>>>> only possible in and through object-oriented activity). >>>>>>>> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional aspect of >>>>>>>> the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to >>>>>>>> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this >>>>>>>> object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all >>>>>>>> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually >>>>>>>> uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such >>>>>>>> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get >>>>>>>> collective activity without them? On this, and precisely >>>>>>>> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of Man", >>>>>>>> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in that >>>>>>>> case that communication is included in activity and is its >>>>>>>> essential component: without relation to another >>>>>>>> person(s), activity is impossible' (144). Although I not >>>>>>>> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I can't >>>>>>>> see how he can be wrong. >>>>>>>>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of >>>>>>>> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the >>>>>>>> category of object-oriented activity, is most primary. Let >>>>>>>> me also note that ?there are other authors who have >>>>>>>> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you >>>>>>>> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on >>>>>>>> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom >>>>>>>> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of auto-affection' ( >>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/ Incarnation-Philosophy- >>>>>> Studies-Phenomenology- Existential/dp/0810131269 >>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I wonder >>>>>>>> whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity >>>>>>>> and communication. Is not the distinction just an artefact >>>>>>>> of a partial understanding of what it means activity and >>>>>>>> what it means communicating. I still feel that >>>>>>>> communication, in the sense of addressivity that Mikhailov >>>>>>>> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for >>>>>>>> semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity >>>>>>>> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't >>>>>>>> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps >>>>>>>> naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication >>>>>>>> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in >>>>>>>> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I >>>>>>>> don't see how any practical activity can have any sense >>>>>>>> (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. >>>>>>>> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are >>>>>>>> talking about; one machines could perform on their own >>>>>>>> without consciousness. ? >>>>>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ______________________________ __ >>>>>>>>> From: Alexander Surmava >>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 >>>>>>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> edu>; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo >>>>>>>> Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole >>>>>>>>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >>>>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>>>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >>>>>>>> aside) :-) >>>>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>>>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >>>>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >>>>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>>>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>>>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >>>>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>>>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >>>>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >>>>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >>>>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>>>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>>>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>>>>>>> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>>>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >>>>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >>>>>>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>>>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >>>>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>>>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>>>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>>>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >>>>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>>>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>>>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>>>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical >>>>>>>> verbiage>>>>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ >>>>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> >>>>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>>>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >>>>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >>>>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>>>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>>>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>>>>>>> Agitprop >>>>>>>>> sticks >>>>>>>>> in my teeth too, >>>>>>>>> and I?d rather >>>>>>>>> compose >>>>>>>>> romances for you - >>>>>>>>> more profit in it >>>>>>>>> and more charm. >>>>>>>>> But I >>>>>>>>> subdued >>>>>>>>> myself, >>>>>>>>> setting my heel >>>>>>>>> on the throat >>>>>>>>> of my own song. >>>>>>>>> Vladimir Mayakovski >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? ??? >>>>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>>>> ? ????? ?????, >>>>>>>>> ? ??? ?? >>>>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>>>> ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>>>>>>> ???????? ??? >>>>>>>>> ? ??????????. >>>>>>>>> ?? ? >>>>>>>>> ???? >>>>>>>>> ??????, >>>>>>>>> ????????? >>>>>>>>> ?? ????? >>>>>>>>> ??????????? ?????. >>>>>>>>> ???????? ?????????? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>>>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>>>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>>>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >>>>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >>>>>>>> to the concrete. >>>>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >>>>>>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>>>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>>>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>>>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>>>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>>>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>>>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>>>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>>> ????????????>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% >>>>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . >>>>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>>>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>>>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>>>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange >>>>>>>> reason was not published then or later. >>>>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>>>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. >>>>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>>>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >>>>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >>>>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>>>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>>>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>>>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>>>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>>>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >>>>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>>>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>>>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >>>>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >>>>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>>>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>>>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >>>>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>>>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>>>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>>>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >>>>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >>>>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>>>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>>>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >>>>>>>> return to this somehow later. >>>>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>>>>>>> work of 1988: >>>>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>>>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>>>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >>>>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>>>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>>>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>>>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>>>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>>>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>>>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>>>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>>>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >>>>>> activity. >>>>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >>>>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>>>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>>>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >>>>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>>>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>>>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>>>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>>>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >>>>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>>>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>>>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>>>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>>>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >>>>>> relation.? >>>>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>>>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>>>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>>>>>>> "addressing" to another person. >>>>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>>>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >>>>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>>>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >>>>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>>>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >>>>>> Ilyenkov. >>>>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >>>>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>>>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>>>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>>>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>>>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>>>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>>>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >>>>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>>>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>>>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>>>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>>>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >>>>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>>>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>>>>>>> social relations.. " >>>>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>>>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>>>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>>>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >>>>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >>>>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>>>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>>>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >>>>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>>>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>>>>>>> solved by ourselves. >>>>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>>>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>>>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was AN >>>>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>>>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>>>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >>>>>>>> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of >>>>>>>> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was inclined to >>>>>>>> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, >>>>>>>> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" >>>>>>>> were for communication. >>>>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>>>>>>> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal >>>>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>>>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>>>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>>>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >>>>>>>> rather indecent. >>>>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>>>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>>>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>>>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >>>>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>>>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>>>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>>>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>>>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>>>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>>>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>>>>>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>>>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >>>>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>>>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>>>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters >>>>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>>>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>>>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>>>>>>> "communication" and "activity." >>>>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>>>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>>>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>>>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. >>>>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >>>>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>>>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>>>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>>>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>>>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >>>>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >>>>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>>>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>>>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>>>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>>>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >>>>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >>>>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>>>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>>>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>>>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my >>>>>>>> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a >>>>>>>> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the >>>>>>>> relation of objective activity and "communication". In the >>>>>>>> same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, >>>>>>>> the active relation of the subject to the object and to >>>>>>>> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, >>>>>>>> indeed, any other, psychology. >>>>>>>>> ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????, >>>>>>>> ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, >>>>>>>> ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, >>>>>>>> ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>>>> ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. >>>>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >>>>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>>>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >>>>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>>>>>>> English text >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>>>> and read it to the end :-). >>>>>>>>> ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >>>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>>> ????????????>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> >>>>>>>>> ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? >>>>>>>> ??????????? ???????? >>>>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ >>>>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% >>>>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% >>>>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% >>>>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% >>>>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% >>>>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >>>>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>>>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >>>>>>>> aside) :-) >>>>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>>>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >>>>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >>>>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>>>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>>>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >>>>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>>>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >>>>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >>>>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >>>>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>>>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>>>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>>>>>>> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>>>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >>>>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >>>>>>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>>>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >>>>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>>>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>>>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>>>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >>>>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>>>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>>>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>>>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical >>>>>>>> verbiage>>>>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ >>>>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> >>>>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>>>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >>>>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >>>>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>>>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>>>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>>>>>>> Agitprop >>>>>>>>> sticks >>>>>>>>> in my teeth too, >>>>>>>>> and I?d rather >>>>>>>>> compose >>>>>>>>> romances for you - >>>>>>>>> more profit in it >>>>>>>>> and more charm. >>>>>>>>> But I >>>>>>>>> subdued >>>>>>>>> myself, >>>>>>>>> setting my heel >>>>>>>>> on the throat >>>>>>>>> of my own song. >>>>>>>>> Vladimir Mayakovski >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? ??? >>>>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>>>> ? ????? ?????, >>>>>>>>> ? ??? ?? >>>>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>>>> ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>>>>>>> ???????? ??? >>>>>>>>> ? ??????????. >>>>>>>>> ?? ? >>>>>>>>> ???? >>>>>>>>> ??????, >>>>>>>>> ????????? >>>>>>>>> ?? ????? >>>>>>>>> ??????????? ?????. >>>>>>>>> ???????? ?????????? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>>>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>>>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>>>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >>>>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >>>>>>>> to the concrete. >>>>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >>>>>>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>>>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>>>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>>>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>>>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>>>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>>>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>>>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>>> ????????????>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% >>>>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . >>>>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>>>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>>>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>>>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange >>>>>>>> reason was not published then or later. >>>>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>>>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. >>>>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>>>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >>>>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >>>>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>>>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>>>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>>>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>>>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>>>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >>>>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>>>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>>>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >>>>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >>>>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>>>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>>>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >>>>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>>>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>>>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>>>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >>>>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >>>>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>>>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>>>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >>>>>>>> return to this somehow later. >>>>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>>>>>>> work of 1988: >>>>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>>>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>>>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >>>>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>>>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>>>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>>>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>>>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>>>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>>>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>>>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>>>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >>>>>> activity. >>>>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >>>>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>>>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>>>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >>>>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>>>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>>>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>>>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>>>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >>>>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>>>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>>>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>>>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>>>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >>>>>> relation.? >>>>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>>>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>>>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>>>>>>> "addressing" to another person. >>>>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>>>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >>>>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>>>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >>>>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>>>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >>>>>> Ilyenkov. >>>>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >>>>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>>>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>>>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>>>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>>>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>>>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>>>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >>>>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>>>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>>>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>>>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>>>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >>>>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>>>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>>>>>>> social relations.. " >>>>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>>>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>>>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>>>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >>>>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >>>>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>>>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>>>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >>>>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>>>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>>>>>>> solved by ourselves. >>>>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>>>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>>>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was >>>>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>>>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>>>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >>>>>>>> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas >>>>>>>> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was >>>>>>>> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other >>>>>>>> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas >>>>>>>> "Leningraders" were for "communication". >>>>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>>>>>>> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a literal >>>>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>>>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>>>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>>>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >>>>>>>> rather indecent. >>>>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>>>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>>>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>>>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >>>>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>>>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>>>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>>>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>>>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>>>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>>>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>>>>>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>>>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >>>>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>>>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>>>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters >>>>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>>>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>>>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>>>>>>> "communication" and "activity." >>>>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>>>> object oriented activity, which is an attribute property >>>>>>>> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, >>>>>>>> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we >>>>>>>> will never get life or object oriented activity even with >>>>>>>> the greatest diligence. >>>>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >>>>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>>>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>>>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>>>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>>>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >>>>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >>>>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>>>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>>>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>>>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>>>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >>>>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >>>>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>>>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>>>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>>>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my diploma >>>>>>>> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist >>>>>>>> theoretical solution to the question of the relation of >>>>>>>> objective activity and "communication". In the same time, >>>>>>>> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active >>>>>>>> relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is >>>>>>>> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, >>>>>>>> any other, psychology. >>>>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >>>>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>>>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >>>>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>>>>>>> English text >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>>>> and read it to the end :-). >>>>>>>>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >>>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>>> ????????????>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> >>>>>>>>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short >>>>>>>> English one >>>>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ >>>>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% >>>>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% >>>>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% >>>>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% >>>>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% >>>>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. >>>>>>>>> Sasha >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Mon Oct 16 06:39:52 2017 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 13:39:52 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <1508031811757.59125@iped.uio.no> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> <1508031811757.59125@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <2038376972.1452638.1508161192705@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Alfredo, all, Excuse me if I ask you to go to the body of the message! From: Alfredo Jornet Gil To: mike cole ; EXtended Mind Culture Activity ; ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? Sent: Sunday, 15 October 2017, 5:13:39 Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Dear Haydi, all,?I'd like to comment on the secondpart (paragraph) of your post, for it mentions 'communication', which we'vebeen discussing in later posts. For it keeps looking as if we were having tochoose between activity or communication, or as if the opposition betweenactivity and communication was to be solved by taking one side to win. Sashawas clear: when the question concerns which category is most primary so thatthe one can be derived from the other, then we can't but agree with him that'from communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such spirituallyuplifting plots, we will not get life or object oriented activity with thegreatest diligence'. ?**First I should say that it?s notmy right to interpret Sasha?s ideas. You said others are silent and Itried to have my turn.One point I?d like to refer to isthat our push towards activity , in fact , was a reaction. There were all sortsof assaults on Leontiev and followers of activity theory to the point Irepeatedly asked our folk to pay attention to the very term CHAT.Thanks moderators nowadays more andconsiderable tolerance is observed.Then why ?we can?t but agree ?? Onthis I think we should consider Sasha?s point of departure , that is ,substance , attributes and modes. And the identity of being and thinking whichcomes to him through Ilyenko to Spinoza. This has its history now revealed byofficial documents part of which was interpreted by David Bakhurst as keyspeaker to the Conference. I?m reading them in Google?s translation which isnow fairly understandable. I might send you a copy. No! Nowadays we don?t have to choosebetween the two or talk prevalingly or dominantly about the essentiallyprecedence of the one over the other.With CHAT I think nowadays we shouldaccept that cultural historical theory is relevant , activity theory isrelevant , too. We cannot deny either the role of speech in tackling lifeaffairs or what is quite relevant but essentially prior to it , that is ,practical activity. ???Yet, in a previous post I wasraising the problem (which may be only my problem and so not really a realproblem) that I cannot think of any object-oriented (reflexive) activity thatitself is not constituted in and through a communicative act. Of course, if youthink of communicative acts as only developed human speech, as you seem tosuggest in your mentions of 'wording' and 'structure sentence', then thesolution is clear: the latter are only derivative. You mention word meaning asa unit of consciousness as problematic as well. All three mentions seemed to besubsumed under the rubric: it is not communication, but activity!?**I understand you using ?communicativeact? but it?s not always the case. Especially when a great respectable ladysays ?I take culture as action?. Here usually and I can say in the majority of caseswe use culture as spiritual culture not necessarily also mechanical technologicalmaterial culture. Therefore for me ?enculturation? could be an action butculture not. I remember hopefully correctly thatLeontiev junior as well as Akhutina have to talk of action act for this reason.My reason is : you talk to act not that you talk and they you go sleep foractions to take place in your dreaming. ??that itself is not constituted inand through a communicative act.? Maybe I?m too na?ve . I will not deny it. Don?tyou want to go further than talk to reach action. Something higher than thePerformance being discussed on the other thread? Let?s not forget dialectics ifwe believe in it. Here I?d like to faithfully quote this recent Andy?s ?processes*affecting* other processes?. But : Constituted in?that is , according to thedictionary : being founded , being invented , being made , being incorporated ,being synthesized , being agglutinated , being comprised , formed ,established.As I?m concerned : No , No to the ?underthe rubric: it is not communication, but activity!? whatever.But what about you sticking to the ?constitutedin? with the synonyms I mentioned?On the one hand you say you have toaccept that essentially and historically , speech WAS brought up in the bosomof activity ; on the other hand , you talk of activity being formed andinvented , come into being in the bosom of speech. If this is so , I couldreject dialogic lingual planning as realized action. I said lots ofnegotiations and lingual planning are on the agenda , underway and in progressby sublimed skilled erudite speakers worldwide but for their realization ,concretization , crystallization , embodiment , something other is needed :action. The calamity was not that Bush talked of non-existent mass destruction arsenalbut that ?actual bombs fell down on innocent humans'. Not that he timed arrivalin Bagdad but that the day after Bagdad had got to be empty of defenders andthe aftermath is not that speeches got archived but that a country and a regionburnt in ashes. It?s not the case that always a talk is preceded by anothertalk but that on many occasions a talk is the outcome of an action previously carried out whetherominous or blessed. Shortly , nowadays neither is aderivative to another. Both work relationally. ??And of course, if we insist onassuming we mean communicating stripped from activity, or somehow opposed toit, then all that makes sense. But a whole different thing would be to think ofcommunicative acts as synonymous with 'acting in a manner adequate to anobject', which is nothing other than the Spinozist definition ofobject-orientedness and of Sasha's reflexive activity. And that is the way thatI think other non-strictly marxist thinkers, like Gregory Bateson, wereconceiving their way to a monist theory of mind as nature. ?**Accepting ?relationally? means not?opposed to it? then you?re welcome ! But ?stripped from activity? soundsdualistic! I won?t mean it in isolation of or detached from activity but not alsocrowning it with giving birth (delivery) to let alone bringing up activity inits bosom , again returning to ?constituted in?. Reason : the fetus might gonil! Action evaporated! Thinking retained for novel talks. We won?t cut off the umbilical cord.But if you are not able to initiate activity in pursuit of your talk , notinghappens. Some numb and deaf artists might take on. Pantomime might work! I don?tknow how far Marx can go with Spinoza but if you depict such a situation , thatis , in the absence of action , talk can take the place of , I should say it?sthe whole thinking body who possesses the capacity and potentiality to find itsway through the complicated contours of other bodies. And I should say I'm not satisfied or clarified with this geometrical metaphor. I'm more familiar with Leontiev's and Ilyenko's metaphors. But now I'm not ready for details.You now and then use theterm ?experience? , then please try not to dissipate it at least. No insistenceNo replacement. Thinking/communicating are within material extended bodies. Howcan we go just with our thinking/communicating? Accepting just one attribute ofthe one substance? If machines do , they?ll be crumbled in non-spontaneity!! To appropriately respond to novel situations. ?Now, this may sound like a forcedshift in language, in the words we'd like to use to refer to the sameobject-orientedness; why call something communication when reflexive activitymay be a better term for it? In fact, a clear and very convincing advantage ofthe latter term is that it has been developed through a critique to a conceptupon which some of the deepest problems of dualism in psychology have beengrounded: irritability. But the very latter notion and in fact the verystimulus - response scheme can perfectly be and have been used as models fortheories of communication. ?**You have a presupposition thatSasha and I are the same person. To what extent we can agree on matters ofdispute is not yet achieved. I hope he continues with his ideas so that both ofus could get enlightened with details. I?m now talking to you on what have beenposed here as for the collective. Communication has been growing (not that ithas been thrown in) up to this point of grandeur and potency and cruciality irreversible.It?s at the service of Life. I cannot say world without speech can go the wayis now going or even is possible for it to prevent a halt ; you cannot claim oreven imagine world without activity whether running in capitalist shape orturning for a new shape. Prejudices cannot make for rationality. Disputes cango on with the question of speech?s historicity and essentiality , primacy ,etc. More than that now is not helpful. You?d better not accuse of usconfirming the S==>Roption. Just for sake of reference , I tell you Sasha has lots of ideas inrelation to the principle of reflexive activity and in relation to the way hedefended his thesis. I?ve read all these in Google translation you admit notenough to issue judgments on such complex matters. Sasha also knows about that.The best way for all of us is to let him go with his ideas , a matter lackingback in our history. I just can say stimulus response is short of one pole ,that is , thinking. ?I am going to suggest two possibleadvantages of having the word communication (or, to use Sasha's formulationother 'spiritually uplifting' terms such as Mikhailov's adressivity) as a'synonym' (if this terminology can be employed) rather than as a derivativecategory with respect to object-orientedness; and I am going to do so with thehonest confusion that I am very unsure this can work (but hey, it is onlyputting myself at risk of being completely wrong that I can hope to growright). The first would be that we may then be able to stop quarrelling aboutcommunication versus activity and instead force ourselves making a choicebetween pursuing a Spinozist monist dialetical psychology, or a dualist one,for it would be this, and not a real division between practical activity andcommunicative activity, what needed to be discerned.?**It?s long I?ve read Mikhailov. Notime to go to it right now. But the short piece you quoted in isolationtriggered stunning in me. Communication on one hand , reciprocity of real andideal on the other hand?? Related? butdistinct? Or radically different , that is , antinomy , contradiction? Nowempty-minded! I use communication quite freely and I link it to the general attributeof thinking capacity and whatever you?re saying here and said above of Sasha.No problem. You?re right that you cannot. Because it?s not a matter ofindividuals or collectives. It?s global. Please don?t risk your honesty forsuch matters. As I said things have been going on on much better basis thanbefore. It?s brilliantly hopeful and I think enough to make other great leaps.I have good reasons for this which I cannot express explicitly. Yes , NoDivision! ?The second advantage may be that, inthat case, we could try revising rather than dismissing Vygotsky's legacy inthe Spinozist terms that he never had the time to pursue himself. For then manyof the psychologist's brilliant ideas about speech and development that so manyof us find helpful when we deal with actual problems of psychologicaldevelopment (as educators, as researchers, as workers, as members oforganisations), could be redefined so as to be consistent with reflexiveactivity without leading to problematic scissions between organic life andcultural life. ?**In a glance , one might think whatis it we are talking about! Is that of our business to make such improvements orconcessions. But as we remember the history of this forum and what it has doneto reach this reverence and standpoint , we find ourselves being convinced thatsuch an enterprise is possible. ?And I should add that I feel myselfashamed for such lengthy response as though it were an interview with a personof qualification. I wonder why our qualified persons should not give theirviews! ?Hoping that this gets us closerrather than further apart,?**Things have so far gone in thedirection of Great Hopes!!?Warmest thanks! ?Haydi?Alfredo ?P.S. No time patience to proofread. Apologies with likelyerrors/mistakes.I had to write first in word format. As I don?t have my ownposts I hope the transfer would not damage the sent version. Dear Haydi, all, I'd like to comment on the second part (paragraph) of your post, for it mentions 'communication', which we've been discussing in later posts. For it keeps looking as if we were having to choose between activity or communication, or as if the opposition between activity and communication was to be solved by taking one side to win. Sasha was clear: when the question concerns which category is most primary so that the one can be derived from the other, then we can't but agree with him that 'from communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or object oriented activity with the greatest diligence'. Yet, in a previous post I was raising the problem (which may be only my problem and so not really a real problem) that I cannot think of any object-oriented (reflexive) activity that itself is not constituted in and through a communicative act. Of course, if you think of communicative acts as only developed human speech, as you seem to suggest in your mentions of 'wording' and 'structure sentence', then the solution is clear: the latter are only derivative. You mention word meaning as a unit of consciousness as problematic as well. All three mentions seemed to be subsumed under the rubric: it is not communication, but activity! And of course, if we insist on assuming we mean communicating stripped from activity, or somehow opposed to it, then all that makes sense. But a whole different thing would be to think of communicative acts as synonymous with 'acting in a manner adequate to an object', which is nothing other than the Spinozist definition of object-orientedness and of Sasha's reflexive activity. And that is the way that I think other non-strictly marxist thinkers, like Gregory Bateson, were conceiving their way to a monist theory of mind as nature. Now, this may sound like a forced shift in language, in the words we'd like to use to refer to the same object-orientedness; why call something communication when reflexive activity may be a better term for it? In fact, a clear and very convincing advantage of the later term is that it has been developed through a critique to a concept upon which some of the deepest problems of dualism in psychology have been grounded: irritability. But the very later notion and in fact the very stimulus - response scheme can perfectly be and have been used as model for theories of communication. I am going to suggest two possible advantages of having the word communication (or, to use Sasha's formulation other 'spiritually uplifting' terms such as Mikhailov's adressivity) as a 'synonym' (if this terminology can be employed) rather than as a derivative category with respect to object-orientedness; and I am going to do so with the honest confusion that I am very unsure this can work (but hey, it is only putting myself at risk of being completely wrong that I can hope to grow right). The first would be that we may then be able to stop quarrelling about communication versus activity and instead force ourselves making a choice between pursuing a Spinozist monist dialetical psychology, or a dualist one, for it would be this, and not a real division between practical activity and communicative activity, what needed to be discerned. The second advantage may be that, in that case, we could try revising rather than dismissing Vygotsky's legacy in the Spinozist terms that he never had the time to pursue himself. For then many of the psychologist's brilliant ideas about speech and development that so many of us find helpful when we deal with actual problems of psychological development (as educators, as researchers, as workers, as members of organisations), could be redefined so as to be consistent with reflexive activity without leading to problematic scissions between organic life and cultural life. Hoping that this gets us closer rather than further apart, Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? Sent: 15 October 2017 00:24 To: mike cole; EXtended Mind Culture Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Dear Mike, Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an activist for his concreteness and clarifications is crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes , Parts , and Moments. He personally provided us with examples from Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they convert Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced with the same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most valuable contribution) does not begin with the individual case in isolation which phenomenologically? speaking (in contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not obtained because one instance is considered detached from all relations and its subservience to the service of the Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is particular in some feature/s. And these particulars are essential. With other particulars in other individuals they are related actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense , this whole could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life itself. Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is , with category and concept only therefore , following Marx and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again on his feet (not that the firmament to that time did put "idea" on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on their heads but to put them again headstand thinking and acting with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just with their brains. Then taking all options in translation even that of a Machine into consideration it does not seem to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of activities thereafter. These activities are those arising from the properties of versatile objects in turn arising from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual activities as moments with the broadest idea of the Monistic Substantial Modes or States in Philosophical terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn integrate and are dissolved into Monism of Substance. Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one Substance) is already there with the organism actively and spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own , positioning its due object and moving along its contours and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to itself , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with a huge gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of consciousness , now apparently ascending to "wording" and "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration) further "communication" as something indispensable and necessary and inevitable to the realization of life affairs. Best Haydi ? ? ? From: mike cole To: Andy Blunden ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Cc: Alexander Surmava ; ivan-dgf ; Ivan Uemlianin ; Haydi Zulfei Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50 Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.Could someone post the Russian text next to the English so that it is possible to compare it with the translation? I spent several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally defeated me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra rubles in my pocket. Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us a "true" translation. mike On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: The Progress Publishers English translation of "Activity and Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: ? ? Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, ? ? material life of the material subject. In the narrower ? ? sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a unit of ? ? life, mediated by mental reflection, by ? ? an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the ? ? subject in the objective world. In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The Development of Mind" we have: Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an organism?s activity; the different activities that realise its diverse vital relations with the surrounding reality are essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively different] types of activity according to the difference in their objects. By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean simply "category." The second does the same, but in addition makes it evident that the plural does not refer to different activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the possibility of forming a true concept of activity altogether. With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is simply that "such an initial *category* can only be object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. Andy ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics. org/ablunden/index.htm On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: > Dear Andy! > I am glad that our communication was resumed after many > years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and files > and found that the problem of "object oriented activity OR > communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before > our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is serious and > it deserves to return to it today. > Last year I was close to being silent forever. > Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed > this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the > opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my > theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my > descendants :-). > I will begin with honest recognition that I do not > understand your question. What means the distinction > between singular and plural number in your remark? Could > you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the > Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my > concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, > moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of > reflexive activity" (that is the title of my dissertation > work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's "Theory of > Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, > having understood the theoretic meaning of your claims to > AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily > understand the essence of your objections to me. > In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I > view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a > particular empirical case of its manifestation. Therefore, > object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just like > Matter, Nature, or Substance. > Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come across > only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its > innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the > conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old > philosophers and that only the numerous individual "atomic > facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really > exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar > positivism and empiricism. > However, all of this may not apply to your position ... > I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. > Best wishes > Sasha > > > > ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden > ?????(?): > > > I'll ask Sasha a question. > > Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial > category can only be object-oriented activity" as it stands, > in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be that you > are translating it from a Russian statement that is correct. > Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in when I > say "every activity has an object."? But in your expression > above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and unless > you are a religious person is not something which can have a > specific object. All English translations of A N Leontyev > make this mistake which has caused no end of confusion among > English-speakers. > > Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," just as > you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." > > Andy > > ------------------------------ ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics. org/ablunden/index.htm > On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > Dear Sasha, all, > > > > > > thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding > response. I think you are right in your assertion that we > are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of > CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. However, one > can see in the lack of response by other members?? that > not everyone has the privilege of the time it requires to > go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing > that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce and I > hope it is/will be appreciated as such. > > > > > > If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I quote > from your response: > > > > > > "If we want to make our choice of the initial category, > without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us > as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will > choose the one of the two categories from which one can > derive the entire diversity of human life, including > another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that > such an initial category can only be object-oriented > activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the > latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from > communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such > spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or > object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" > > > > > > If we stay within the boundaries of the framework > according to which we are looking of the most original > germ cell, the one from which all others can be > developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I > think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree on that. > > > > > > But ??once we are back to the development of a concrete > Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact that, for > any child to participate in human forms of object-oriented > activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented > activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular > organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into those > forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category > devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with > the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you describe, is > this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, or is > it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? > > > > > > As moderator, I should stop there and let others answer > (which I hope some do). > > > > As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: > > > > > > Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in > ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of teaching > deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this > is only possible through *involvement* in collective > activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary > over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is > only possible in and through object-oriented activity). > But then, is not the teaching, the instructional aspect of > the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to > this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this > object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all > those attributes that you just called 'spiritually > uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such > activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get > collective activity without them? On this, and precisely > in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of Man", > Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in that > case that communication is included in activity and is its > essential component: without relation to another > person(s), activity is impossible'? (144). Although I not > always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I can't > see how he can be wrong. > > > > > > So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of > reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the > category of object-oriented activity, is most primary. Let > me also note that ?there are other authors who have > developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you > discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on > French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom > affectivity is the concrete 'essence of auto-affection' ( > https://www.amazon.com/ Incarnation-Philosophy- Studies-Phenomenology- Existential/dp/0810131269 > ) > > > > > > As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I wonder > whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity > and communication. Is not the distinction just an artefact > of a partial understanding of what it means activity and > what it means communicating. I still feel that > communication, in the sense of addressivity that Mikhailov > describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for > semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity > precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't > get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps > naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication > that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in > the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I > don't see how any practical activity can have any sense > (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. > Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are > talking about; one machines could perform on their own > without consciousness. ? > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________ __ > > From: Alexander Surmava > > > Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > ; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo > Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole > > Subject: Object oriented activity and communication > > > > Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > > The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, > touching on the most fundamental categories. But before > proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica > aside) :-) > > Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is > conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, > based on the general principles accepted in its framework > and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a > common, unifying conception are usually considered the > theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. > Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions > reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the > interpretation of these concepts. > > For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle > of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible > with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is > possible to consider both objective activity and > communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe > for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to > these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? > > I am convinced that without answering these and similar > fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry > and without answering them in the most general form, we > are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this > leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, > returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical > grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that > instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, > based on which we can practically solve socially > significant problems, let us say, create a consistently > democratic education system, we draw everyone to the > interesting only for us theoretical > verbiage > about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical > problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between > Vygotsky and Leontiev. > > Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too > to reflect on how to help find the path to education and > culture for the children of poor migrants from Central > Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > > > > Agitprop > >?? ? ? ? ? ? sticks > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? in my teeth too, > > and I?d rather > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? compose > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? romances for you - > > more profit in it > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? and more charm. > > But I > >?? ? ? subdued > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? myself, > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? setting my heel > > on the throat > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of my own song. > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Vladimir Mayakovski > > > > ? ??? > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????? ?????, > > ? ??? ?? > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????? ?? ??? ? > > ???????? ??? > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????. > > ?? ? > >?? ? ? ???? > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????, > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????????? > > ?? ????? > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????? ?????. > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? ?????????? > > > > > > Among other things, such an over and over again forced > return to the very foundation makes it difficult to > understand even these very basics, for it forces us to > return to the most abstract level all the time, literally > stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract > to the concrete. > > Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions > about how to understand the principle of interaction as > such and about the relationship of object oriented > activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer > them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed > answers to these questions have been formulated by me in > my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF > LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian > ???????? ?????? ???????????? > ???????????? . > Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the > principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is > available in English. It was even sent in published in > English international journal... but for some strange > reason was not published then or later. > > So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, > especially since I can answer by quoting my old text > https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS. > > But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to > repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction > of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case > be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two > ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach > should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my > opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should > not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious > that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the > type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the > mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object > oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing > with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic > of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? > ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the > terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" > is also an interaction, but that is its highest, > essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism > type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense > that one can not in principle separate out its active and > passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in > the process of positing of an object one side is active, > subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There > are many interesting differences between them, but let us > return to this somehow later. > > In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation > work of 1988: > > ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation > can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two > objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken > abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is > neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It > receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to > spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) > ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? > imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant > leaves (with his telescope). > > That is to say that living, active or predmet relation > as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously > acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital activity. > > Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, > or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not > spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. > Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not > determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with > accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. > Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not > just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be > conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism > itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing > indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into > contact with its living subjectivity. To put it > differently, we can find not the slightest trace of > predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive relation.? > > Now about the object oriented activity and > communication, and it does not matter whether in the > verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's > "addressing" to another person. > > Which of these two categories should be considered > primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to > discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness > (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and > remains the central problem of theoretical psychology > associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and Ilyenkov. > > To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want > to build scientific psychology in accordance with the > famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the > concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers > believed that the method of ascent, the method of > "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to > ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical > discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one > thing - either activity or communication. And at first > glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a > Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course > sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic > coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human > essence is no abstraction inherent in each single > individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the > social relations.. " > > And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's > view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely > scientific psychology consisted only in the need to > reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology > with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then > the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely > difficult situation, because the classics left us with > different meanings on this topic and with which of them it > is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, > and with which in the second, it would still have to be > solved by ourselves. > > So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this > issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A > group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was AN > Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly > belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented > activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second > and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of > Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was inclined to > formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, > "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" > were for communication. > > Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our > reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal > reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our > current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a > direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the > classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something > rather indecent. > > The end of the discussion between supporters of > "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also > characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, > convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing > the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was > dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was > expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of > director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of > Leontief's psychology department was appointed a > well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader > Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in > the ideological department of the Central Committee of > CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific > "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in > Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the > Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed? supporters > of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's > short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE > could not reverse the situation too. > > Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to > "communication" and "activity." > > If we want to make our choice of the initial category, > without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us > as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will > choose the one of the two categories from which one can > derive the entire diversity of human life, including > another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that > such an initial category can only be object-oriented > activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the > latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from > communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such > spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or > object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. > > And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact > realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive > Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and > the entire affective sphere associated with it is first > generated by objective activity at the most basic level, > in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic > of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course > of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. > And, finally, it demonstrates how the external > reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, > together and practically producing their own lives, > assumes a specifically human character, being a > reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. > > We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" > communication and the affective side of life are taken not > as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of > which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as > necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s > REFLEXIVE side. > > The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my > diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a > Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the > relation of objective activity and "communication". In the > same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, > the active relation of the subject to the object and to > itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, > indeed, any other, psychology. > > ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????, > ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, > ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, > ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? > https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS > ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. > > The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable > place for introducing such fundamental concepts, > therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the > notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large > English text > https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS > and read it to the end :-). > > ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? > ???????????? > > ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? > ??????????? ???????? > https://www.avramus.com/app/ download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 > . > > Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > > The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, > touching on the most fundamental categories. But before > proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica > aside) :-) > > Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is > conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, > based on the general principles accepted in its framework > and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a > common, unifying conception are usually considered the > theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. > Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions > reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the > interpretation of these concepts. > > For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle > of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible > with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is > possible to consider both objective activity and > communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe > for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to > these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? > > I am convinced that without answering these and similar > fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry > and without answering them in the most general form, we > are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this > leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, > returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical > grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that > instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, > based on which we can practically solve socially > significant problems, let us say, create a consistently > democratic education system, we draw everyone to the > interesting only for us theoretical > verbiage > about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical > problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between > Vygotsky and Leontiev. > > Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too > to reflect on how to help find the path to education and > culture for the children of poor migrants from Central > Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > > > > Agitprop > >?? ? ? ? ? ? sticks > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? in my teeth too, > > and I?d rather > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? compose > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? romances for you - > > more profit in it > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? and more charm. > > But I > >?? ? ? subdued > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? myself, > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? setting my heel > > on the throat > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of my own song. > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Vladimir Mayakovski > > > > ? ??? > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????? ?????, > > ? ??? ?? > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????? ?? ??? ? > > ???????? ??? > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????. > > ?? ? > >?? ? ? ???? > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????, > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????????? > > ?? ????? > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????? ?????. > >?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? ?????????? > > > > > > Among other things, such an over and over again forced > return to the very foundation makes it difficult to > understand even these very basics, for it forces us to > return to the most abstract level all the time, literally > stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract > to the concrete. > > Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions > about how to understand the principle of interaction as > such and about the relationship of object oriented > activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer > them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed > answers to these questions have been formulated by me in > my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF > LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian > ???????? ?????? ???????????? > ???????????? . > Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the > principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is > available in English. It was even sent in published in > English international journal... but for some strange > reason was not published then or later. > > So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, > especially since I can answer by quoting my old text > https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS. > > But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to > repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction > of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case > be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two > ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach > should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my > opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should > not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious > that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the > type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the > mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object > oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing > with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic > of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? > ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the > terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" > is also an interaction, but that is its highest, > essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism > type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense > that one can not in principle separate out its active and > passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in > the process of positing of an object one side is active, > subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There > are many interesting differences between them, but let us > return to this somehow later. > > In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation > work of 1988: > > ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation > can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two > objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken > abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is > neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It > receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to > spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) > ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? > imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant > leaves (with his telescope). > > That is to say that living, active or predmet relation > as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously > acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital activity. > > Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, > or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not > spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. > Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not > determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with > accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. > Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not > just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be > conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism > itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing > indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into > contact with its living subjectivity. To put it > differently, we can find not the slightest trace of > predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive relation.? > > Now about the object oriented activity and > communication, and it does not matter whether in the > verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's > "addressing" to another person. > > Which of these two categories should be considered > primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to > discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness > (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and > remains the central problem of theoretical psychology > associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and Ilyenkov. > > To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want > to build scientific psychology in accordance with the > famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the > concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers > believed that the method of ascent, the method of > "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to > ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical > discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one > thing - either activity or communication. And at first > glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a > Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course > sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic > coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human > essence is no abstraction inherent in each single > individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the > social relations.. " > > And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's > view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely > scientific psychology consisted only in the need to > reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology > with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then > the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely > difficult situation, because the classics left us with > different meanings on this topic and with which of them it > is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, > and with which in the second, it would still have to be > solved by ourselves. > > > > So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this > issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A > group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was > Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly > belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented > activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second > and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas > a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was > inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other > words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas > "Leningraders" were for "communication". > > Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our > reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a literal > reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our > current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a > direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the > classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something > rather indecent. > > > > The end of the discussion between supporters of > "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also > characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, > convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing > the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was > dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was > expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of > director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of > Leontief's psychology department was appointed a > well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader > Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in > the ideological department of the Central Committee of > CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific > "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in > Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the > Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed? supporters > of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's > short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE > could not reverse the situation too. > > > > Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to > "communication" and "activity." > > If we want to make our choice of the initial category, > without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us > as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will > choose the one of the two categories from which one can > derive the entire diversity of human life, including > another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that > such an initial category can only be object-oriented > activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the > object oriented activity, which is an attribute property > of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, > empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we > will never get life or object oriented activity even with > the greatest diligence. > > > > And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact > realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive > Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and > the entire affective sphere associated with it is first > generated by objective activity at the most basic level, > in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic > of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course > of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. > > And, finally, it demonstrates how the external > reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, > together and practically producing their own lives, > assumes a specifically human character, being a > reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. > > > > We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" > communication and the affective side of life are taken not > as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of > which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as > necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s > REFLEXIVE side. > > > > The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my diploma > thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist > theoretical solution to the question of the relation of > objective activity and "communication". In the same time, > reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active > relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is > the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, > any other, psychology. > > The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable > place for introducing such fundamental concepts, > therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the > notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large > English text > https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ CONSCIOUSNESS > and read it to the end :-). > > > > The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? > ???????????? > > > > Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short > English one > https://www.avramus.com/app/ download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. > > > > Sasha > > > > > > > > From alexander.surmava@yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 08:00:18 2017 From: alexander.surmava@yahoo.com (Alexander Surmava) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 15:00:18 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiAgUmU6INCe0YLQsjogUmU6IE9iamVjdCBvcmllbnRl?= =?utf-8?q?d_activity_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> Message-ID: <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> Dear colleagues, Excuse me for the delay in responding to your previous posts about Leontiev and Vygotsky. The problems that we are discussing are so serious that it takes a long time to think about them and formulate an answer. Especially in English :-). Therefore, the main answer I hope to put on the XMCA no earlier than tomorrow. But suddenly the discussion turned into an extremely interesting side. I mean analysis of the logic of "Das Kapital". It is discussed what can and should be properly considered the unit of analysis of both Capital and ?Das Kapital?, the world system of capitalism and its reflection in Marx? theoretic masterpiece. At least two hypotheses have been voiced. The first is that such a unit is a separate " business", a capitalist firm. And the second, that the unit of analysis is the exchange of goods. I think that I can hardly agree with both hypotheses.It seems to me that for Marx the first, most abstract stage of analysis is in no case the exchange of goods, but the commodity itself. And not an abstract commodity, but a commodity produced under capitalistic relations. Therefore, the unit of analysis is strictly speaking the very production of such a commodity. The exchange of goods occurs not only under capitalism, but also under slavery, and under feudalism. This is not an independent, not substantial concept. The exchange depends on the mode of production, and not vice versa. The same can be applied to "communication" in psychology, to the "exchange" of ideas, caresses or beatings. This communication does not occur due to certain immanent laws of interpersonal communication, but entirely depends on the collaborative object-oriented activity (predmetnoy deyatelnosty), collective labor of historically determined individuals. In turn, the nature of their collective work, depends not on the distribution of genes in their genomes, but on the distribution of the means of production, on the distribution of labor instruments. Let us emphasize, not on the distribution of verbal signs, not on ideology, but on the distribution of the most material weapons of human activity. With communist greetings :-) ,?Sasha P.S. By the way, I enthusiastically welcome the fact that our discussion has switched from discussing Vygotsky's "units" to discussing the most abstract category of "Das Kapital" of Marx, that is, from a pale copy, to the original. By the way, in the future it might be interesting to re-read the "Dialectics of the abstract and concrete in scientific and theoretical thinking" by EV Ilyenkov. This work contains an elaborate analysis of the method of Marx, in comparison with which Vygotsky's methodological reflexion seems to be something quite student-like. ??: Andy Blunden ????: Alfredo Jornet Gil ; "xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu" ??????????: ???????????, 16 ??????? 2017 15:51 ????: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Capitals are units of capital. The only whole is the world market, within which units of capital grow and shrink, consume one another and so on. A capital (i.e. a firm) is not a "whole" in the true sense of the word, and I would have an issue with anyone who wants to treat a firm as a "system of activity" if there were any implication that this means a "closed system." Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 16/10/2017 11:42 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > Your point in the first paragraph is what I was trying to > convey to Haidy, to see if there is room there for common > ground between your positions. ? > > Alfredo > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Andy Blunden > *Sent:* 16 October 2017 14:39 > *To:* Alfredo Jornet Gil; xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity and communication >? > > Yes, yes, Alfredo! But what is often overlooked is that > the aim of Marx's research is not commodity exchange (in > itself a harmless business) but capital. But he does not > *start* with capital, but goes down to its roots, its > source, in the circulation of commodities. > > Compare with Vygotsky's analysis of the intellect > (thinking). Word meanings are *not* the subject matter of > Vygotsky's research (who gives a damn!?), but concepts! > But he does not start with concepts, but goes down to its > roots, its source, in speech arising in collaborative > activity. Actually, AN Leontyev missed this, as can be > seen in his trenchant attack on Vygotsky in his ?Study of > the Environment in the Pedological Works of L. S. Vygotsky". > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 16/10/2017 11:31 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >> Damn! Commodity exchange is the unit of burgeons society... I have to study more! Thanks Andy >> >> "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as ?an immense accumulation of commodities,?[1] its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity" >> >> Alfredo >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden >> Sent: 16 October 2017 14:22 >> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >> >> Just to illustrate that I am being an orthodox Marxist here, >> from Chapter 10, Vol. 3 of Capital: >> >>? ? "In the case of capitals of average, or approximately >>? ? average, composition, the price of production is thus >>? ? the same or almost the same as the value, and the profit >>? ? the same as the surplus-value produced by them. All >>? ? other capitals, of whatever composition, tend toward >>? ? this average under pressure of competition. But since >>? ? the capitals of average composition are of the same, or >>? ? approximately the same, structure as the average social >>? ? capital, all capitals have the tendency, regardless of >>? ? the surplus-value produced by them, to realize the >>? ? average profit, rather than their own surplus-value in >>? ? the price of their commodity, i.e., to realize the >>? ? prices of production." >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 16/10/2017 11:18 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >>> No, Alfredo. A unit of capital is a firm (or company). It is >>> impossible to explain the formation of a rate of profit (at >>> least as Marx does in /Capital/) without the conception of >>> units of capital, namely, firms and the competition between >>> them. Firms are of course, what Engestrom would call a >>> "system of activity" or I would call a "project" and >>> Leontyev almost could call an activity. But in the USSR >>> there were no firms, only the state. It is perhaps A N >>> Leonytev's greatest discovery? that there are both micro and >>> molar units in any complex process. True in Psychology and >>> true in political economy. Whereas exchange of commodities >>> is an artefact-mediated action, a firm is an activity, a >>> specific aggregate of actions, directed towards the >>> quantitative maximisation of the value of the unit of capital. >>> >>> English is not a perfect language either. : ) The word >>> "consciousness" has the unfortunate connotation of being a >>> mass noun (or continuous substance) whereas it is know only, >>> of course, in individual "consciousnesses" or "minds." But >>> it sounds so clumsy to say "a consciousness." >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 16/10/2017 11:07 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>>> Haydi, >>>> >>>> I think Andy does not mean 'one capital' versus 'several capitals', for, if I read Andy adequately, Capital is for him not a unit but rather the whole of which commodity exchange is the unit. Thus, the germ cell of Capital is thus not Capital, or 'a' Capital, which you seem to attribute to Andy; just as I don't think he is arguing that there is consciousness, and then many consciousnesses. So it may be that you two agree more than disagree, judging by your last paragraph. >>>> >>>> Whether his position on singular and plurals is more or less adequate than another positions, that I leave it up to the discussion. >>>> >>>> Alfredo >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? >>>> Sent: 16 October 2017 09:45 >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Andy Blunden >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >>>> >>>> Thank you David for your explanation! Though for me it needs more than one read. >>>> >>>> The point was whether use of activity and activities in Leontiev is a contradiction. Whoever L was and whatever he believed in , he was not so negligent to the point of posing activity first and immediately after that recounting 'activities'. Translation ruled out a committed error. Then such a blundering display must have a justification rather than a misunderstanding in comprehension. >>>> >>>> In one sense all things are related. The more so with the Monistic View. We have so many corporate and incorporate things , two of them so problematic communication and practical activity since Descartes and we are determined to avoid Dualism and refer and return all phenomena to that same thing , the one substance. In the actuality of the world , there's nothing discrete , that is , absolutely unrelated. Is that pretext for us not to see this unbounded versatility and hues and dues as distinct coloring? Maybe one of the ways was for man to let Nature go unrestrained?? But man also did not come of its own will. >>>> >>>> The sole way destined or open to Man was of its Nature to engage with the surrounding. To deal with it sensually and subjectively/agently. Then Man in one time interpreted all phenomena as they appeared to him. But he grew up further than his infantile period. He learnt to delve into matters , go deeper and deeper. With one spectacle (plane) he observed how that single substance let its attributes multiply themselves into different shapes and colors and Modes. With another plane of the one spectacle observed the variation of the Modes themselves. I mean Ontology and Epistemology not yet separate from each other as I used a pair of planes for that matter. >>>> >>>> Then we usually don't use a nail-clipper for alterations and manipulations in Genes. Or devices for Genes for our feeding and nutrition. It is then within these constraints that corporate and incorporate phenomena differ. Singles and plurals differ. Discrete and the indivisible differ. Parts and Moments differ. Wholes and mere entities differ. A process and a product resulting from that process differ. No justification to interchange them because of the use of A in front of them. >>>> >>>> I wonder if this is true for others too. For me it's difficult to accept to say "this capital that capital" "those 8 capitals united" "capitals of the world dissolved into unanimity". If I'm correct in this , it's , I think , because Capital is a Whole , coming out of a long process of functions and disfunctions , moments of circulations and transient stagnation , booms and boosts and drawbacks and failures. The moment of its conception in the exchange of commodities up to the discovery of the private appropriation of the surplus value to the point of harnessing every means to penetrate each tight corner of the big World. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Haydi >>>> >>>> >>>>? ? ? From: David Kellogg >>>>? To: Andy Blunden ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >>>>? Sent: Monday, 16 October 2017, 2:21:12 >>>>? Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >>>> >>>> Of course, neither an object nor a process is discrete (or even, as Andy >>>> says, "discreet"). Who can tell me where a mountain river ends and the >>>> alluvial plain begins? Certainly not Cezanne or the phenomenologists who so >>>> loved him. Yet a mountain is most assuredly an object, just as surely >>>> as climbing the mountain to ascertain its degree of montagnitude is a >>>> process. >>>> >>>> This last week I've been struggling through the "Curriculum Reforms" >>>> wrought by three right wing governments in Norway, Finland, and New >>>> Zealand. Like Catalonia, these are all countries where unpopular coalitions >>>> of right parties are replacing a much more popular but obviously >>>> unsuccessful social democratic coalition of left parties. In Norway and in >>>> Finland, the coalition actually includes the far right, neo-fascist, >>>> anti-immigrant parties, and in New Zealand it includes the ACT, that is, an >>>> "association of consumers and taxpayers" whose main interest is cutting >>>> education budgets, starting by making teachers and students fight each >>>> other for scarce resources in the form of "block grants". >>>> >>>> Now, all of these governments are more or less bound by something called >>>> DeSeCo, which is short for Describe and Select Competences. This is because >>>> right-wing ideology sees education not as a public good but as a commodity, >>>> to be judged by tangible results and priced accordingly. This presents a >>>> real theoretical problem for right-wingers, because they ALSO see that >>>> "flexible labor markets" and "entrepreneurial spirit" means that there >>>> isn't any way of deciding on what skills or even what knowledge the >>>> "economy of the future" will demand. >>>> >>>> We can see this in the emphasis on "competence". Competence is not a thing >>>> or a process, and it is neither discrete nor discreet. Of course, if you >>>> are a linguist, competence is something Chomsky thought of in the sixties, >>>> an abstract form of knowledge in a hypothetical native speaker-hearer in an >>>> imaginary homogenous speech community. It is "discrete" in the sense of >>>> being nowhere and nowhen connectible to performance in any way. It is >>>> therefore "discreet" in the sense of being untestable--as soon as you test >>>> it, you have a form of performance, not competence. It's like standing in >>>> front of a classroom with a picture of a guy swimming and trying to teach >>>> the expression "i can swim". What you have in the picture is not "I can >>>> swim"; it's manifestly "he is swimming". >>>> >>>> But in DeSeCo, you get these lists of competences, which are set up as if >>>> they were discrete so you can list them on a Powerpoint slide and sell them >>>> to ministries of education. And the real selling point is that, on the one >>>> hand, because they are all "meta-skills" and "meta-knowledges", they don't >>>> have any practical outcome or real commitment to a job and a livelihood. >>>> And on the other, they sound terribly powerful when you phrase them as >>>> "learning to learn" or "transversal competence" or "meta-cognitive skills" >>>> or something like that. Jobs, in other words, are discretionary. After >>>> centuries of promising jobs and livelhood in return for school and boredom, >>>> the Western economies have decided that sticks are cheaper than carrots, >>>> and the thing to do is simply to rule people who don't have educational >>>> certificates out of the job market rather than try to provide >>>> actual know-how and factual know-that. >>>> >>>> Here are my four favorites (i.e. the four that we stress in our own >>>> curricular reform here in South Korea): >>>> >>>> interpersonal competence (sociability, the ability to 'be alone with >>>> others' as Hughlings Jackson put it) >>>> cultural competence (enculturation, the ability to understand traditions, >>>> mores, and norms) >>>> creative competence (intelligence, innovation, yadda yadda) >>>> individual competence (the ability to dress yourself, feed yourself, and >>>> show up for an interview where you will not be offered a job) >>>> >>>> Vygotsky, as usual, has a better idea--it's a mountain. We just turn the >>>> DeSeCO PPT upside down. Then we add each competence---freedom, creative >>>> intelligence, encultured habits and tastes, and instiinctive >>>> sociability--as a superstructure? erected on the basis of the previous one: >>>> >>>> free will (the ability to make choices that are not necessarily intelligent >>>> or habitual or instinctive) >>>> intelligence (the ability to make choices that are not habitual or >>>> instinctive but nevertheless adaptive) >>>> enculturation (the ability to make choices that are not instinctive but >>>> conform to the choices that have proven successful in the now socialized >>>> environment) >>>> instinct (the ability to make choices that are? responsive to the >>>> environment and which conform to the choices that have proven successful in >>>> phylogenesis) >>>> >>>> Are theses objects? Of course, if we say so. And processes? Well, how else >>>> could they have come about? What they are not, however, is either >>>> "discrete" or "discreet": they are clearly linked to each other, and they >>>> are all linked, through the lower layer, to adaptations ot the environment. >>>> >>>> And there's the rub--where the rubber meets the road. The real question, >>>> for our teachers and for our children, is about what will happen to them >>>> now that these competences can no longer be redeemed in jobs. Will the >>>> anti-Faustian bargain of exchanging your youth for a >>>> stable middle-aged livelihood survive? >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >>>> >>>>> Haydi, you say "AN activity is not a thing ; it's a >>>>> process." I wonder then what is a thing which is not also a >>>>> process? (I interpret "thing" as meaning "something >>>>> discrete," otherwise your objection makes no sense.) The >>>>> point is that Hegel does not make this dichotomy - every >>>>> thing is also a process and vice versa. That a process is >>>>> also discreet is important because it is only thanks to its >>>>> discreteness that we can cognise the process and in fact >>>>> only thanks to its discreteness that a process can affect >>>>> anything else. To speak of processes which are not also >>>>> discrete is to speak in abstractions. >>>>> >>>>> On this point, when Hegel puts ideas above matter, it has to >>>>> be realised that for Hegel "ideas" are social practices - he >>>>> is simply place human practice at the centre of human life >>>>> and its comprehension, rather than the mechanical and >>>>> chemical processes of Nature. If you think that "ideas" are >>>>> simply chimera inside our heads, then, of course, Hegel's >>>>> idealism seems like madness. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, all the Marxists have blasted Hegel. As they must. >>>>> Otherwise they must end up advocates of Constitutional >>>>> Monarchy. But while Marx uses almost every mention he makes >>>>> of Hegel to criticise him, often in extreme terms, it can go >>>>> unnoticed the extent to which in practice Marx follows Hegel >>>>> in philosophy. Of course Marx is not equal to Hegel, but >>>>> simple formulae do not contribute to understanding the relation. >>>>> >>>>> Andy >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>> On 15/10/2017 6:51 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: >>>>>> Andy, >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me first apologize to David Kellog because in others' >>>>>> wandering and perplexity it was he who in his reading of >>>>>> Gramsci's prison letters came across this point and made >>>>>> you not only accept the inappropriateness of Hegel's >>>>>> headstand as Crowning every worldly affair deriving from >>>>>> the People's Heads "Idea" , "Absolute" but also >>>>>> intensifying this point with more examples and references >>>>>> from Engels' "utopian versus genuine socialism" on your >>>>>> part. Of course you've been helping us on many occasions >>>>>> and? you're very welcome for this nothing to be denied. >>>>>> >>>>>> At this point we have no problem with translation. >>>>>> Leontiev meant it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Suppose that ANL does not know "individual" which is very >>>>>> ambiguous because in what then one should seek the >>>>>> embodiment of the "particular" and if one takes the very >>>>>> particular as individual , then everything gets mixed up . >>>>>> Then what about you who stick firmly on individual >>>>>> discrete detached activities as an objection to Sasha's >>>>>> sole ACTIVITY as theoretical understanding. >>>>>> >>>>>> As you well know even AN activity is not a thing ; it's a >>>>>> process. And you once distinguished between GENERAL WORK >>>>>> ACTIVITY and LABOUR ACTIVITY or VALORIZATION ACTIVITY >>>>>> which was quite right and timely though you recently gave >>>>>> differing definitions in no way harmonious to your >>>>>> previous definitions. But the main problem is blending >>>>>> clarity in expression with concrete in theory. No doubt >>>>>> you're a Fan of Hegel. I should repeat myself : Hegel is a >>>>>> hero of theoretical concepts. In theorizing , and for him >>>>>> to explicate the Essence of Phenomena , he begins with >>>>>> apparently concrete things as ABSTRACTS finally reaches >>>>>> CONCRETE UNIVERSALS as concepts. And here we again very >>>>>> surprisingly see you put your finger upon what you should >>>>>> have known in person is contrary to your own erudition. >>>>>> Turning Hegel down as believing in discrete abstracts. >>>>>> >>>>>> And now to his son's comment : What individual are you >>>>>> pursuing? Your Hegel sees phenomena in their relations. >>>>>> According to him and also according to ANL ACTIVITY as a >>>>>> unit of Life is Molar non-additive. He even does not see >>>>>> operations as single acts. It's a matter of the angle of >>>>>> vision not detachment and concreteness. If his son had >>>>>> talked of concreteness in moments of activity , then you >>>>>> were right in your objections and oppositions. You please >>>>>> give us your last definition of activity here (not in >>>>>> lengthy references) so that we can have a discerning >>>>>> option. >>>>>> So far to remove the problem we should accept operations >>>>>> are separately and independently carried out ; actions in >>>>>> their own are carried out ; activities are carried out >>>>>> arbitrarily. And these are done to the realization of man >>>>>> as the ensemble of social relations based on some >>>>>> infrastructure. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hegel's metaphor has been thrown back at him by Marx , >>>>>> Engels , Lenin , Vygotsky , Ilyenko , and many others. If >>>>>> you like to stand above all Giants of Marxism , it's >>>>>> something perfectly and absolutely Personal as you're >>>>>> speaking out loud! Then why give us so many references. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> >>>>>> Haydi >>>>>> >>>>>> P.S. Alfredo! Though you have my previous private response >>>>>> concerning the matters you pose I see myself accountable >>>>>> to rewrite them to the Public. Thanks! >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> *From:* Andy Blunden >>>>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, 15 October 2017, 5:35:40 >>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity >>>>>> and communication >>>>>> >>>>>> Haydi, partly the problem with ANL's >>>>>> philosophy-as-we-know-it is simply a product of its >>>>>> translation into English. But partly it is also in his >>>>>> philosophy. As Victor Kaptelinin first pointed out (so far >>>>>> as I know), ANL knows the universal and the particular but >>>>>> he does not know the individual. And his son's comment that >>>>>> ANL did not conceive of Activity as being discrete proves >>>>>> this to be the case. Thus his concept of Activity is not a >>>>>> fully concrete concept. And this is not a product of >>>>>> translation. >>>>>> >>>>>> As David Kellogg has kindly pointed out to me, it was Hegel >>>>>> who actually first introduced this metaphor of people >>>>>> "walking (or standing) on their heads." Personally, I don't >>>>>> think it has ever helped anyone understand the defect of >>>>>> Hegel's philosophy to throw this metaphor back at him. As >>>>>> demonstrated in this issue (the concept of activity) it was >>>>>> Hegel who understood that a concept must have all three >>>>>> moments - universal, particular and individual. >>>>>> >>>>>> Andy >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>> On 15/10/2017 9:24 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: >>>>>>> Dear Mike, >>>>>>> Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an >>>>>> activist for his concreteness and clarifications is >>>>>> crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot >>>>>> ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes , Parts , >>>>>> and Moments. He personally provided us with examples from >>>>>> Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they convert >>>>>> Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced with the >>>>>> same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most >>>>>> valuable contribution) does not begin with the individual >>>>>> case in isolation which phenomenologically? speaking (in >>>>>> contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for >>>>>> appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not obtained >>>>>> because one instance is considered detached from all >>>>>> relations and its subservience to the service of the >>>>>> Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is particular in >>>>>> some feature/s. And these particulars are essential. With >>>>>> other particulars in other individuals they are related >>>>>> actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense , this whole >>>>>> could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life itself. >>>>>> Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is , >>>>>> with category and concept only therefore , following Marx >>>>>> and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again on his >>>>>> feet (not that the firmament to that time did put "idea" >>>>>> on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on their >>>>>> heads but to put them again headstand thinking and acting >>>>>> with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just >>>>>> with their brains. Then taking all options in translation >>>>>> even that of a Machine into consideration it does not seem >>>>>> to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of >>>>>> Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of >>>>>> activities thereafter. These activities are those arising >>>>>> from the properties of versatile objects in turn arising >>>>>> from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile >>>>>> needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think >>>>>> Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual >>>>>> activities as moments with the broadest idea of the >>>>>> Monistic Substantial Modes or States in Philosophical >>>>>> terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn integrate and >>>>>> are dissolved into Monism of Substance. >>>>>>> Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche >>>>>> (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one >>>>>> Substance) is already there with the organism actively and >>>>>> spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own , >>>>>> positioning its due object and moving along its contours >>>>>> and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to itself >>>>>> , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and >>>>>> bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as >>>>>> novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with >>>>>> Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with a huge >>>>>> gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of >>>>>> consciousness , now apparently ascending to "wording" and >>>>>> "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration) further >>>>>> "communication" as something indispensable and necessary >>>>>> and inevitable to the realization of life affairs. >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> Haydi >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>? ? ? From: mike cole >>>>> > >>>>>>>? To: Andy Blunden >>>>> >; "eXtended Mind, Culture, >>>>>> Activity" >>>>> > >>>>>>> Cc: Alexander Surmava >>>>> >; ivan-dgf >>>>>> >; Ivan >>>>>> Uemlianin >; >>>>>> Haydi Zulfei >>>>> > >>>>>>>? Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50 >>>>>>>? Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented >>>>>> activity and communication >>>>>>> Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.Could someone post >>>>>> the Russian text next to the English so that it is >>>>>> possible to compare it with the translation? I spent >>>>>> several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of >>>>>> Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally defeated >>>>>> me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra rubles in >>>>>> my pocket. >>>>>>> Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us >>>>>> a "true" translation. >>>>>>> mike >>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> The Progress Publishers English translation of "Activity and >>>>>>> Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of >>>>>>> Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>? ? Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, >>>>>>>? ? material life of the material subject. In the narrower >>>>>>>? ? sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a unit of >>>>>>>? ? life, mediated by mental reflection, by >>>>>>>? ? an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the >>>>>>>? ? subject in the objective world. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The >>>>>>> Development of Mind" we have: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an >>>>>>> organism?s activity; the different activities that realise >>>>>>> its diverse vital relations with the surrounding reality are >>>>>>> essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore >>>>>>> differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively >>>>>>> different] types of activity according to the difference in >>>>>>> their objects. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses >>>>>>> "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has >>>>>>> been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for >>>>>>> English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean simply >>>>>>> "category." The second does the same, but in addition makes >>>>>>> it evident that the plural does not refer to different >>>>>>> activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the >>>>>>> possibility of forming a true concept of activity >>>>>> altogether. >>>>>>> With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is >>>>>>> simply that "such an initial *category* can only be >>>>>>> object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing >>>>>>> that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, >>>>>>> even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics. >>>>>> org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>> On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: >>>>>>>> Dear Andy! >>>>>>>> I am glad that our communication was resumed after many >>>>>>>> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and files >>>>>>>> and found that the problem of "object oriented activity OR >>>>>>>> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before >>>>>>>> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is serious and >>>>>>>> it deserves to return to it today. >>>>>>>> Last year I was close to being silent forever. >>>>>>>> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed >>>>>>>> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the >>>>>>>> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my >>>>>>>> theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my >>>>>>>> descendants :-). >>>>>>>> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not >>>>>>>> understand your question. What means the distinction >>>>>>>> between singular and plural number in your remark? Could >>>>>>>> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the >>>>>>>> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my >>>>>>>> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, >>>>>>>> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of >>>>>>>> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my dissertation >>>>>>>> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's "Theory of >>>>>>>> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, >>>>>>>> having understood the theoretic meaning of your claims to >>>>>>>> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily >>>>>>>> understand the essence of your objections to me. >>>>>>>> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I >>>>>>>> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a >>>>>>>> particular empirical case of its manifestation. Therefore, >>>>>>>> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just like >>>>>>>> Matter, Nature, or Substance. >>>>>>>> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come across >>>>>>>> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its >>>>>>>> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the >>>>>>>> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old >>>>>>>> philosophers and that only the numerous individual "atomic >>>>>>>> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really >>>>>>>> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar >>>>>>>> positivism and empiricism. >>>>>>>> However, all of this may not apply to your position ... >>>>>>>> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. >>>>>>>> Best wishes >>>>>>>> Sasha >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> > ?????(?): >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'll ask Sasha a question. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial >>>>>>>> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it >>>>>> stands, >>>>>>>> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be >>>>>> that you >>>>>>>> are translating it from a Russian statement that is >>>>>> correct. >>>>>>>> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in when I >>>>>>>> say "every activity has an object."? But in your expression >>>>>>>> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and >>>>>> unless >>>>>>>> you are a religious person is not something which can >>>>>> have a >>>>>>>> specific object. All English translations of A N Leontyev >>>>>>>> make this mistake which has caused no end of confusion >>>>>> among >>>>>>>> English-speakers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," just as >>>>>>>> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics. >>>>>> org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>>>>>>>> Dear Sasha, all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding >>>>>>>> response. I think you are right in your assertion that we >>>>>>>> are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of >>>>>>>> CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. However, one >>>>>>>> can see in the lack of response by other members?? that >>>>>>>> not everyone has the privilege of the time it requires to >>>>>>>> go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing >>>>>>>> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce and I >>>>>>>> hope it is/will be appreciated as such. >>>>>>>>> If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I quote >>>>>>>> from your response: >>>>>>>>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>>>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>>>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>>>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" >>>>>>>>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework >>>>>>>> according to which we are looking of the most original >>>>>>>> germ cell, the one from which all others can be >>>>>>>> developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I >>>>>>>> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree on >>>>>> that. >>>>>>>>> But ??once we are back to the development of a concrete >>>>>>>> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact that, for >>>>>>>> any child to participate in human forms of object-oriented >>>>>>>> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented >>>>>>>> activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular >>>>>>>> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into those >>>>>>>> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category >>>>>>>> devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with >>>>>>>> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you describe, is >>>>>>>> this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, or is >>>>>>>> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? >>>>>>>>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others answer >>>>>>>> (which I hope some do). >>>>>>>>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in >>>>>>>> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of teaching >>>>>>>> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this >>>>>>>> is only possible through *involvement* in collective >>>>>>>> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary >>>>>>>> over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is >>>>>>>> only possible in and through object-oriented activity). >>>>>>>> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional aspect of >>>>>>>> the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to >>>>>>>> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this >>>>>>>> object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all >>>>>>>> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually >>>>>>>> uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such >>>>>>>> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get >>>>>>>> collective activity without them? On this, and precisely >>>>>>>> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of Man", >>>>>>>> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in that >>>>>>>> case that communication is included in activity and is its >>>>>>>> essential component: without relation to another >>>>>>>> person(s), activity is impossible'? (144). Although I not >>>>>>>> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I can't >>>>>>>> see how he can be wrong. >>>>>>>>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of >>>>>>>> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the >>>>>>>> category of object-oriented activity, is most primary. Let >>>>>>>> me also note that ?there are other authors who have >>>>>>>> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you >>>>>>>> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on >>>>>>>> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom >>>>>>>> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of auto-affection' ( >>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/ Incarnation-Philosophy- >>>>>> Studies-Phenomenology- Existential/dp/0810131269 >>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I wonder >>>>>>>> whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity >>>>>>>> and communication. Is not the distinction just an artefact >>>>>>>> of a partial understanding of what it means activity and >>>>>>>> what it means communicating. I still feel that >>>>>>>> communication, in the sense of addressivity that Mikhailov >>>>>>>> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for >>>>>>>> semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity >>>>>>>> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't >>>>>>>> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps >>>>>>>> naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication >>>>>>>> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in >>>>>>>> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I >>>>>>>> don't see how any practical activity can have any sense >>>>>>>> (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. >>>>>>>> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are >>>>>>>> talking about; one machines could perform on their own >>>>>>>> without consciousness. ? >>>>>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ______________________________ __ >>>>>>>>> From: Alexander Surmava >>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 >>>>>>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> edu>; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo >>>>>>>> Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole >>>>>>>>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >>>>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>>>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >>>>>>>> aside) :-) >>>>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>>>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >>>>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >>>>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>>>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>>>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >>>>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>>>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >>>>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >>>>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >>>>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>>>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>>>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>>>>>>> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>>>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >>>>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >>>>>>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>>>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >>>>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>>>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>>>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>>>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >>>>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>>>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>>>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>>>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical >>>>>>>> verbiage>>>>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ >>>>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> >>>>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>>>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >>>>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >>>>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>>>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>>>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>>>>>>> Agitprop >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? sticks >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? in my teeth too, >>>>>>>>> and I?d rather >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? compose >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? romances for you - >>>>>>>>> more profit in it >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? and more charm. >>>>>>>>> But I >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? subdued >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? myself, >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? setting my heel >>>>>>>>> on the throat >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of my own song. >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Vladimir Mayakovski >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? ??? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????? ?????, >>>>>>>>> ? ??? ?? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>>>>>>> ???????? ??? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????. >>>>>>>>> ?? ? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ???? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????, >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????????? >>>>>>>>> ?? ????? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????? ?????. >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? ?????????? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>>>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>>>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>>>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >>>>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >>>>>>>> to the concrete. >>>>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >>>>>>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>>>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>>>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>>>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>>>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>>>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>>>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>>>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>>> ????????????>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% >>>>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . >>>>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>>>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>>>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>>>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange >>>>>>>> reason was not published then or later. >>>>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>>>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. >>>>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>>>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >>>>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >>>>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>>>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>>>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>>>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>>>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>>>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >>>>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>>>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>>>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >>>>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >>>>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>>>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>>>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >>>>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>>>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>>>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>>>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >>>>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >>>>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>>>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>>>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >>>>>>>> return to this somehow later. >>>>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>>>>>>> work of 1988: >>>>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>>>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>>>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >>>>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>>>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>>>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>>>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>>>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>>>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>>>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>>>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>>>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >>>>>> activity. >>>>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >>>>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>>>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>>>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >>>>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>>>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>>>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>>>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>>>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >>>>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>>>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>>>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>>>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>>>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >>>>>> relation.? >>>>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>>>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>>>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>>>>>>> "addressing" to another person. >>>>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>>>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >>>>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>>>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >>>>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>>>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >>>>>> Ilyenkov. >>>>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >>>>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>>>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>>>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>>>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>>>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>>>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>>>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >>>>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>>>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>>>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>>>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>>>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >>>>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>>>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>>>>>>> social relations.. " >>>>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>>>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>>>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>>>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >>>>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >>>>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>>>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>>>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >>>>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>>>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>>>>>>> solved by ourselves. >>>>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>>>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>>>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was AN >>>>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>>>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>>>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >>>>>>>> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of >>>>>>>> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was inclined to >>>>>>>> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, >>>>>>>> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" >>>>>>>> were for communication. >>>>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>>>>>>> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal >>>>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>>>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>>>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>>>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >>>>>>>> rather indecent. >>>>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>>>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>>>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>>>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >>>>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>>>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>>>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>>>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>>>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>>>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>>>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>>>>>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>>>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >>>>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>>>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>>>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed? supporters >>>>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>>>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>>>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>>>>>>> "communication" and "activity." >>>>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>>>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>>>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>>>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. >>>>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >>>>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>>>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>>>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>>>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>>>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >>>>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >>>>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>>>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>>>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>>>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>>>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >>>>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >>>>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>>>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>>>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>>>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my >>>>>>>> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a >>>>>>>> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the >>>>>>>> relation of objective activity and "communication". In the >>>>>>>> same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, >>>>>>>> the active relation of the subject to the object and to >>>>>>>> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, >>>>>>>> indeed, any other, psychology. >>>>>>>>> ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????, >>>>>>>> ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, >>>>>>>> ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, >>>>>>>> ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>>>> ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. >>>>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >>>>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>>>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >>>>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>>>>>>> English text >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>>>> and read it to the end :-). >>>>>>>>> ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >>>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>>> ????????????>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> >>>>>>>>> ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? >>>>>>>> ??????????? ???????? >>>>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ >>>>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% >>>>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% >>>>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% >>>>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% >>>>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% >>>>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >>>>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>>>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >>>>>>>> aside) :-) >>>>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>>>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >>>>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >>>>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>>>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>>>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >>>>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>>>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >>>>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >>>>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >>>>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>>>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>>>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>>>>>>> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>>>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >>>>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >>>>>>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>>>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >>>>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>>>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>>>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>>>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >>>>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>>>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>>>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>>>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical >>>>>>>> verbiage>>>>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ >>>>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> >>>>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>>>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >>>>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >>>>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>>>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>>>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>>>>>>> Agitprop >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? sticks >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? in my teeth too, >>>>>>>>> and I?d rather >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? compose >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? romances for you - >>>>>>>>> more profit in it >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? and more charm. >>>>>>>>> But I >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? subdued >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? myself, >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? setting my heel >>>>>>>>> on the throat >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of my own song. >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Vladimir Mayakovski >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? ??? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????? ?????, >>>>>>>>> ? ??? ?? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>>>>>>> ???????? ??? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????. >>>>>>>>> ?? ? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ???? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????, >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????????? >>>>>>>>> ?? ????? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????? ?????. >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? ?????????? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>>>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>>>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>>>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >>>>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >>>>>>>> to the concrete. >>>>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >>>>>>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>>>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>>>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>>>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>>>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>>>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>>>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>>>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>>> ????????????>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% >>>>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . >>>>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>>>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>>>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>>>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange >>>>>>>> reason was not published then or later. >>>>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>>>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. >>>>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>>>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >>>>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >>>>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>>>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>>>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>>>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>>>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>>>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >>>>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>>>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>>>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >>>>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >>>>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>>>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>>>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >>>>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>>>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>>>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>>>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >>>>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >>>>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>>>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>>>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >>>>>>>> return to this somehow later. >>>>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>>>>>>> work of 1988: >>>>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>>>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>>>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >>>>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>>>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>>>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>>>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>>>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>>>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>>>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>>>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>>>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >>>>>> activity. >>>>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >>>>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>>>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>>>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >>>>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>>>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>>>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>>>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>>>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >>>>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>>>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>>>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>>>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>>>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >>>>>> relation.? >>>>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>>>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>>>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>>>>>>> "addressing" to another person. >>>>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>>>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >>>>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>>>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >>>>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>>>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >>>>>> Ilyenkov. >>>>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >>>>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>>>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>>>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>>>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>>>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>>>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>>>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >>>>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>>>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>>>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>>>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>>>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >>>>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>>>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>>>>>>> social relations.. " >>>>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>>>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>>>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>>>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >>>>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >>>>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>>>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>>>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >>>>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>>>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>>>>>>> solved by ourselves. >>>>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>>>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>>>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was >>>>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>>>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>>>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >>>>>>>> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas >>>>>>>> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was >>>>>>>> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other >>>>>>>> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas >>>>>>>> "Leningraders" were for "communication". >>>>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>>>>>>> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a literal >>>>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>>>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>>>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>>>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >>>>>>>> rather indecent. >>>>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>>>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>>>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>>>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >>>>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>>>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>>>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>>>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>>>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>>>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>>>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>>>>>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>>>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >>>>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>>>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>>>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed? supporters >>>>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>>>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>>>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>>>>>>> "communication" and "activity." >>>>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>>>> object oriented activity, which is an attribute property >>>>>>>> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, >>>>>>>> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we >>>>>>>> will never get life or object oriented activity even with >>>>>>>> the greatest diligence. >>>>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >>>>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>>>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>>>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>>>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>>>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >>>>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >>>>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>>>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>>>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>>>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>>>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >>>>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >>>>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>>>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>>>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>>>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my diploma >>>>>>>> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist >>>>>>>> theoretical solution to the question of the relation of >>>>>>>> objective activity and "communication". In the same time, >>>>>>>> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active >>>>>>>> relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is >>>>>>>> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, >>>>>>>> any other, psychology. >>>>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >>>>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>>>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >>>>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>>>>>>> English text >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>>>> and read it to the end :-). >>>>>>>>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >>>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>>> ????????????>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> >>>>>>>>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short >>>>>>>> English one >>>>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ >>>>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% >>>>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% >>>>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% >>>>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% >>>>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% >>>>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. >>>>>>>>> Sasha >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Mon Oct 16 14:49:12 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 21:49:12 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net>, <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1508190552093.73064@iped.uio.no> So, not commodity exchange, but commodity production, Sasha. That is of course in line with everything else you can read in Marx, including the introductory paragraphs of the German Ideology, and sounds right. Although I did not think that 'exchange of goods' was synonymous with 'exchange of commodities,' It is a whole different thing, and what you are saying is that these are different because of the type of relations of production. Sounds right to me. There are theories that take communication to be an exchange of words, or of signs, or of ideas as you write, a 'negotiation of meanings' others say. But there are alternatives to that too, some of which characterise the communicative relation as a productive force, an orderliness that is self-generating and irreducible to any of the communicating 'parties' or their messages. Led by W-M Roth, we have written about this. Taking that perspective, and this may be because I am 'only' a student, and one much less qualified than the one you speak about in your message, it becomes very difficult for me to have communication to be somehow secondary. As it's been suggested here. I feel more comfortable thinking of 'productive activity' or object oriented activity, as manifesting both as practical activity and as communicative activity; but not first the one and only later the other. I read Marx saying the same when writing this in the German Ideology: "The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men-the language of real life." ?And then again, "Language is as old as consciousness, language is practical, real consciousness that exists for other men as well, and only therefore does it also exist for me; language, like consciousness, only arises from the need, the necessity, of intercourse with other men." I do not see here some hierarchy of primaries and secondaries, but rather immanence, humanity as a productive force that has practical and communicative aspects. But I am happy to be in the process of being corrected about this. Alfredo PS: The text by Ilyenkov that Sasha refers to is available at Marxists.org, here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/abstract/index.htm ________________________________ From: Alexander Surmava Sent: 16 October 2017 17:00 To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Alfredo Jornet Gil; Mike Cole; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Ivan Uemlianin; Martin John Packer Subject: ???: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Dear colleagues, Excuse me for the delay in responding to your previous posts about Leontiev and Vygotsky. The problems that we are discussing are so serious that it takes a long time to think about them and formulate an answer. Especially in English :-). Therefore, the main answer I hope to put on the XMCA no earlier than tomorrow. But suddenly the discussion turned into an extremely interesting side. I mean analysis of the logic of "Das Kapital". It is discussed what can and should be properly considered the unit of analysis of both Capital and ?Das Kapital?, the world system of capitalism and its reflection in Marx? theoretic masterpiece. At least two hypotheses have been voiced. The first is that such a unit is a separate " business", a capitalist firm. And the second, that the unit of analysis is the exchange of goods. I think that I can hardly agree with both hypotheses. It seems to me that for Marx the first, most abstract stage of analysis is in no case the exchange of goods, but the commodity itself. And not an abstract commodity, but a commodity produced under capitalistic relations. Therefore, the unit of analysis is strictly speaking the very production of such a commodity. The exchange of goods occurs not only under capitalism, but also under slavery, and under feudalism. This is not an independent, not substantial concept. The exchange depends on the mode of production, and not vice versa. The same can be applied to "communication" in psychology, to the "exchange" of ideas, caresses or beatings. This communication does not occur due to certain immanent laws of interpersonal communication, but entirely depends on the collaborative object-oriented activity (predmetnoy deyatelnosty), collective labor of historically determined individuals. In turn, the nature of their collective work, depends not on the distribution of genes in their genomes, but on the distribution of the means of production, on the distribution of labor instruments. Let us emphasize, not on the distribution of verbal signs, not on ideology, but on the distribution of the most material weapons of human activity. With communist greetings :-) , Sasha P.S. By the way, I enthusiastically welcome the fact that our discussion has switched from discussing Vygotsky's "units" to discussing the most abstract category of "Das Kapital" of Marx, that is, from a pale copy, to the original. By the way, in the future it might be interesting to re-read the "Dialectics of the abstract and concrete in scientific and theoretical thinking" by EV Ilyenkov. This work contains an elaborate analysis of the method of Marx, in comparison with which Vygotsky's methodological reflexion seems to be something quite student-like. ________________________________ ??: Andy Blunden ????: Alfredo Jornet Gil ; "xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu" ??????????: ???????????, 16 ??????? 2017 15:51 ????: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Capitals are units of capital. The only whole is the world market, within which units of capital grow and shrink, consume one another and so on. A capital (i.e. a firm) is not a "whole" in the true sense of the word, and I would have an issue with anyone who wants to treat a firm as a "system of activity" if there were any implication that this means a "closed system." Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 16/10/2017 11:42 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > Your point in the first paragraph is what I was trying to > convey to Haidy, to see if there is room there for common > ground between your positions. ? > > Alfredo > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Andy Blunden > > *Sent:* 16 October 2017 14:39 > *To:* Alfredo Jornet Gil; xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity and communication > > > Yes, yes, Alfredo! But what is often overlooked is that > the aim of Marx's research is not commodity exchange (in > itself a harmless business) but capital. But he does not > *start* with capital, but goes down to its roots, its > source, in the circulation of commodities. > > Compare with Vygotsky's analysis of the intellect > (thinking). Word meanings are *not* the subject matter of > Vygotsky's research (who gives a damn!?), but concepts! > But he does not start with concepts, but goes down to its > roots, its source, in speech arising in collaborative > activity. Actually, AN Leontyev missed this, as can be > seen in his trenchant attack on Vygotsky in his ?Study of > the Environment in the Pedological Works of L. S. Vygotsky". > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 16/10/2017 11:31 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >> Damn! Commodity exchange is the unit of burgeons society... I have to study more! Thanks Andy >> >> "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as ?an immense accumulation of commodities,?[1] its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity" >> >> Alfredo >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Andy Blunden > >> Sent: 16 October 2017 14:22 >> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >> >> Just to illustrate that I am being an orthodox Marxist here, >> from Chapter 10, Vol. 3 of Capital: >> >> "In the case of capitals of average, or approximately >> average, composition, the price of production is thus >> the same or almost the same as the value, and the profit >> the same as the surplus-value produced by them. All >> other capitals, of whatever composition, tend toward >> this average under pressure of competition. But since >> the capitals of average composition are of the same, or >> approximately the same, structure as the average social >> capital, all capitals have the tendency, regardless of >> the surplus-value produced by them, to realize the >> average profit, rather than their own surplus-value in >> the price of their commodity, i.e., to realize the >> prices of production." >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 16/10/2017 11:18 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >>> No, Alfredo. A unit of capital is a firm (or company). It is >>> impossible to explain the formation of a rate of profit (at >>> least as Marx does in /Capital/) without the conception of >>> units of capital, namely, firms and the competition between >>> them. Firms are of course, what Engestrom would call a >>> "system of activity" or I would call a "project" and >>> Leontyev almost could call an activity. But in the USSR >>> there were no firms, only the state. It is perhaps A N >>> Leonytev's greatest discovery that there are both micro and >>> molar units in any complex process. True in Psychology and >>> true in political economy. Whereas exchange of commodities >>> is an artefact-mediated action, a firm is an activity, a >>> specific aggregate of actions, directed towards the >>> quantitative maximisation of the value of the unit of capital. >>> >>> English is not a perfect language either. : ) The word >>> "consciousness" has the unfortunate connotation of being a >>> mass noun (or continuous substance) whereas it is know only, >>> of course, in individual "consciousnesses" or "minds." But >>> it sounds so clumsy to say "a consciousness." >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 16/10/2017 11:07 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>>> Haydi, >>>> >>>> I think Andy does not mean 'one capital' versus 'several capitals', for, if I read Andy adequately, Capital is for him not a unit but rather the whole of which commodity exchange is the unit. Thus, the germ cell of Capital is thus not Capital, or 'a' Capital, which you seem to attribute to Andy; just as I don't think he is arguing that there is consciousness, and then many consciousnesses. So it may be that you two agree more than disagree, judging by your last paragraph. >>>> >>>> Whether his position on singular and plurals is more or less adequate than another positions, that I leave it up to the discussion. >>>> >>>> Alfredo >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? > >>>> Sent: 16 October 2017 09:45 >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Andy Blunden >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >>>> >>>> Thank you David for your explanation! Though for me it needs more than one read. >>>> >>>> The point was whether use of activity and activities in Leontiev is a contradiction. Whoever L was and whatever he believed in , he was not so negligent to the point of posing activity first and immediately after that recounting 'activities'. Translation ruled out a committed error. Then such a blundering display must have a justification rather than a misunderstanding in comprehension. >>>> >>>> In one sense all things are related. The more so with the Monistic View. We have so many corporate and incorporate things , two of them so problematic communication and practical activity since Descartes and we are determined to avoid Dualism and refer and return all phenomena to that same thing , the one substance. In the actuality of the world , there's nothing discrete , that is , absolutely unrelated. Is that pretext for us not to see this unbounded versatility and hues and dues as distinct coloring? Maybe one of the ways was for man to let Nature go unrestrained?? But man also did not come of its own will. >>>> >>>> The sole way destined or open to Man was of its Nature to engage with the surrounding. To deal with it sensually and subjectively/agently. Then Man in one time interpreted all phenomena as they appeared to him. But he grew up further than his infantile period. He learnt to delve into matters , go deeper and deeper. With one spectacle (plane) he observed how that single substance let its attributes multiply themselves into different shapes and colors and Modes. With another plane of the one spectacle observed the variation of the Modes themselves. I mean Ontology and Epistemology not yet separate from each other as I used a pair of planes for that matter. >>>> >>>> Then we usually don't use a nail-clipper for alterations and manipulations in Genes. Or devices for Genes for our feeding and nutrition. It is then within these constraints that corporate and incorporate phenomena differ. Singles and plurals differ. Discrete and the indivisible differ. Parts and Moments differ. Wholes and mere entities differ. A process and a product resulting from that process differ. No justification to interchange them because of the use of A in front of them. >>>> >>>> I wonder if this is true for others too. For me it's difficult to accept to say "this capital that capital" "those 8 capitals united" "capitals of the world dissolved into unanimity". If I'm correct in this , it's , I think , because Capital is a Whole , coming out of a long process of functions and disfunctions , moments of circulations and transient stagnation , booms and boosts and drawbacks and failures. The moment of its conception in the exchange of commodities up to the discovery of the private appropriation of the surplus value to the point of harnessing every means to penetrate each tight corner of the big World. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Haydi >>>> >>>> >>>> From: David Kellogg > >>>> To: Andy Blunden >; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > >>>> Sent: Monday, 16 October 2017, 2:21:12 >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >>>> >>>> Of course, neither an object nor a process is discrete (or even, as Andy >>>> says, "discreet"). Who can tell me where a mountain river ends and the >>>> alluvial plain begins? Certainly not Cezanne or the phenomenologists who so >>>> loved him. Yet a mountain is most assuredly an object, just as surely >>>> as climbing the mountain to ascertain its degree of montagnitude is a >>>> process. >>>> >>>> This last week I've been struggling through the "Curriculum Reforms" >>>> wrought by three right wing governments in Norway, Finland, and New >>>> Zealand. Like Catalonia, these are all countries where unpopular coalitions >>>> of right parties are replacing a much more popular but obviously >>>> unsuccessful social democratic coalition of left parties. In Norway and in >>>> Finland, the coalition actually includes the far right, neo-fascist, >>>> anti-immigrant parties, and in New Zealand it includes the ACT, that is, an >>>> "association of consumers and taxpayers" whose main interest is cutting >>>> education budgets, starting by making teachers and students fight each >>>> other for scarce resources in the form of "block grants". >>>> >>>> Now, all of these governments are more or less bound by something called >>>> DeSeCo, which is short for Describe and Select Competences. This is because >>>> right-wing ideology sees education not as a public good but as a commodity, >>>> to be judged by tangible results and priced accordingly. This presents a >>>> real theoretical problem for right-wingers, because they ALSO see that >>>> "flexible labor markets" and "entrepreneurial spirit" means that there >>>> isn't any way of deciding on what skills or even what knowledge the >>>> "economy of the future" will demand. >>>> >>>> We can see this in the emphasis on "competence". Competence is not a thing >>>> or a process, and it is neither discrete nor discreet. Of course, if you >>>> are a linguist, competence is something Chomsky thought of in the sixties, >>>> an abstract form of knowledge in a hypothetical native speaker-hearer in an >>>> imaginary homogenous speech community. It is "discrete" in the sense of >>>> being nowhere and nowhen connectible to performance in any way. It is >>>> therefore "discreet" in the sense of being untestable--as soon as you test >>>> it, you have a form of performance, not competence. It's like standing in >>>> front of a classroom with a picture of a guy swimming and trying to teach >>>> the expression "i can swim". What you have in the picture is not "I can >>>> swim"; it's manifestly "he is swimming". >>>> >>>> But in DeSeCo, you get these lists of competences, which are set up as if >>>> they were discrete so you can list them on a Powerpoint slide and sell them >>>> to ministries of education. And the real selling point is that, on the one >>>> hand, because they are all "meta-skills" and "meta-knowledges", they don't >>>> have any practical outcome or real commitment to a job and a livelihood. >>>> And on the other, they sound terribly powerful when you phrase them as >>>> "learning to learn" or "transversal competence" or "meta-cognitive skills" >>>> or something like that. Jobs, in other words, are discretionary. After >>>> centuries of promising jobs and livelhood in return for school and boredom, >>>> the Western economies have decided that sticks are cheaper than carrots, >>>> and the thing to do is simply to rule people who don't have educational >>>> certificates out of the job market rather than try to provide >>>> actual know-how and factual know-that. >>>> >>>> Here are my four favorites (i.e. the four that we stress in our own >>>> curricular reform here in South Korea): >>>> >>>> interpersonal competence (sociability, the ability to 'be alone with >>>> others' as Hughlings Jackson put it) >>>> cultural competence (enculturation, the ability to understand traditions, >>>> mores, and norms) >>>> creative competence (intelligence, innovation, yadda yadda) >>>> individual competence (the ability to dress yourself, feed yourself, and >>>> show up for an interview where you will not be offered a job) >>>> >>>> Vygotsky, as usual, has a better idea--it's a mountain. We just turn the >>>> DeSeCO PPT upside down. Then we add each competence---freedom, creative >>>> intelligence, encultured habits and tastes, and instiinctive >>>> sociability--as a superstructure erected on the basis of the previous one: >>>> >>>> free will (the ability to make choices that are not necessarily intelligent >>>> or habitual or instinctive) >>>> intelligence (the ability to make choices that are not habitual or >>>> instinctive but nevertheless adaptive) >>>> enculturation (the ability to make choices that are not instinctive but >>>> conform to the choices that have proven successful in the now socialized >>>> environment) >>>> instinct (the ability to make choices that are responsive to the >>>> environment and which conform to the choices that have proven successful in >>>> phylogenesis) >>>> >>>> Are theses objects? Of course, if we say so. And processes? Well, how else >>>> could they have come about? What they are not, however, is either >>>> "discrete" or "discreet": they are clearly linked to each other, and they >>>> are all linked, through the lower layer, to adaptations ot the environment. >>>> >>>> And there's the rub--where the rubber meets the road. The real question, >>>> for our teachers and for our children, is about what will happen to them >>>> now that these competences can no longer be redeemed in jobs. Will the >>>> anti-Faustian bargain of exchanging your youth for a >>>> stable middle-aged livelihood survive? >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Haydi, you say "AN activity is not a thing ; it's a >>>>> process." I wonder then what is a thing which is not also a >>>>> process? (I interpret "thing" as meaning "something >>>>> discrete," otherwise your objection makes no sense.) The >>>>> point is that Hegel does not make this dichotomy - every >>>>> thing is also a process and vice versa. That a process is >>>>> also discreet is important because it is only thanks to its >>>>> discreteness that we can cognise the process and in fact >>>>> only thanks to its discreteness that a process can affect >>>>> anything else. To speak of processes which are not also >>>>> discrete is to speak in abstractions. >>>>> >>>>> On this point, when Hegel puts ideas above matter, it has to >>>>> be realised that for Hegel "ideas" are social practices - he >>>>> is simply place human practice at the centre of human life >>>>> and its comprehension, rather than the mechanical and >>>>> chemical processes of Nature. If you think that "ideas" are >>>>> simply chimera inside our heads, then, of course, Hegel's >>>>> idealism seems like madness. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, all the Marxists have blasted Hegel. As they must. >>>>> Otherwise they must end up advocates of Constitutional >>>>> Monarchy. But while Marx uses almost every mention he makes >>>>> of Hegel to criticise him, often in extreme terms, it can go >>>>> unnoticed the extent to which in practice Marx follows Hegel >>>>> in philosophy. Of course Marx is not equal to Hegel, but >>>>> simple formulae do not contribute to understanding the relation. >>>>> >>>>> Andy >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>> On 15/10/2017 6:51 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: >>>>>> Andy, >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me first apologize to David Kellog because in others' >>>>>> wandering and perplexity it was he who in his reading of >>>>>> Gramsci's prison letters came across this point and made >>>>>> you not only accept the inappropriateness of Hegel's >>>>>> headstand as Crowning every worldly affair deriving from >>>>>> the People's Heads "Idea" , "Absolute" but also >>>>>> intensifying this point with more examples and references >>>>>> from Engels' "utopian versus genuine socialism" on your >>>>>> part. Of course you've been helping us on many occasions >>>>>> and you're very welcome for this nothing to be denied. >>>>>> >>>>>> At this point we have no problem with translation. >>>>>> Leontiev meant it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Suppose that ANL does not know "individual" which is very >>>>>> ambiguous because in what then one should seek the >>>>>> embodiment of the "particular" and if one takes the very >>>>>> particular as individual , then everything gets mixed up . >>>>>> Then what about you who stick firmly on individual >>>>>> discrete detached activities as an objection to Sasha's >>>>>> sole ACTIVITY as theoretical understanding. >>>>>> >>>>>> As you well know even AN activity is not a thing ; it's a >>>>>> process. And you once distinguished between GENERAL WORK >>>>>> ACTIVITY and LABOUR ACTIVITY or VALORIZATION ACTIVITY >>>>>> which was quite right and timely though you recently gave >>>>>> differing definitions in no way harmonious to your >>>>>> previous definitions. But the main problem is blending >>>>>> clarity in expression with concrete in theory. No doubt >>>>>> you're a Fan of Hegel. I should repeat myself : Hegel is a >>>>>> hero of theoretical concepts. In theorizing , and for him >>>>>> to explicate the Essence of Phenomena , he begins with >>>>>> apparently concrete things as ABSTRACTS finally reaches >>>>>> CONCRETE UNIVERSALS as concepts. And here we again very >>>>>> surprisingly see you put your finger upon what you should >>>>>> have known in person is contrary to your own erudition. >>>>>> Turning Hegel down as believing in discrete abstracts. >>>>>> >>>>>> And now to his son's comment : What individual are you >>>>>> pursuing? Your Hegel sees phenomena in their relations. >>>>>> According to him and also according to ANL ACTIVITY as a >>>>>> unit of Life is Molar non-additive. He even does not see >>>>>> operations as single acts. It's a matter of the angle of >>>>>> vision not detachment and concreteness. If his son had >>>>>> talked of concreteness in moments of activity , then you >>>>>> were right in your objections and oppositions. You please >>>>>> give us your last definition of activity here (not in >>>>>> lengthy references) so that we can have a discerning >>>>>> option. >>>>>> So far to remove the problem we should accept operations >>>>>> are separately and independently carried out ; actions in >>>>>> their own are carried out ; activities are carried out >>>>>> arbitrarily. And these are done to the realization of man >>>>>> as the ensemble of social relations based on some >>>>>> infrastructure. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hegel's metaphor has been thrown back at him by Marx , >>>>>> Engels , Lenin , Vygotsky , Ilyenko , and many others. If >>>>>> you like to stand above all Giants of Marxism , it's >>>>>> something perfectly and absolutely Personal as you're >>>>>> speaking out loud! Then why give us so many references. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> >>>>>> Haydi >>>>>> >>>>>> P.S. Alfredo! Though you have my previous private response >>>>>> concerning the matters you pose I see myself accountable >>>>>> to rewrite them to the Public. Thanks! >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> *From:* Andy Blunden > >>>>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, 15 October 2017, 5:35:40 >>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity >>>>>> and communication >>>>>> >>>>>> Haydi, partly the problem with ANL's >>>>>> philosophy-as-we-know-it is simply a product of its >>>>>> translation into English. But partly it is also in his >>>>>> philosophy. As Victor Kaptelinin first pointed out (so far >>>>>> as I know), ANL knows the universal and the particular but >>>>>> he does not know the individual. And his son's comment that >>>>>> ANL did not conceive of Activity as being discrete proves >>>>>> this to be the case. Thus his concept of Activity is not a >>>>>> fully concrete concept. And this is not a product of >>>>>> translation. >>>>>> >>>>>> As David Kellogg has kindly pointed out to me, it was Hegel >>>>>> who actually first introduced this metaphor of people >>>>>> "walking (or standing) on their heads." Personally, I don't >>>>>> think it has ever helped anyone understand the defect of >>>>>> Hegel's philosophy to throw this metaphor back at him. As >>>>>> demonstrated in this issue (the concept of activity) it was >>>>>> Hegel who understood that a concept must have all three >>>>>> moments - universal, particular and individual. >>>>>> >>>>>> Andy >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>> On 15/10/2017 9:24 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: >>>>>>> Dear Mike, >>>>>>> Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an >>>>>> activist for his concreteness and clarifications is >>>>>> crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot >>>>>> ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes , Parts , >>>>>> and Moments. He personally provided us with examples from >>>>>> Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they convert >>>>>> Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced with the >>>>>> same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most >>>>>> valuable contribution) does not begin with the individual >>>>>> case in isolation which phenomenologically speaking (in >>>>>> contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for >>>>>> appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not obtained >>>>>> because one instance is considered detached from all >>>>>> relations and its subservience to the service of the >>>>>> Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is particular in >>>>>> some feature/s. And these particulars are essential. With >>>>>> other particulars in other individuals they are related >>>>>> actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense , this whole >>>>>> could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life itself. >>>>>> Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is , >>>>>> with category and concept only therefore , following Marx >>>>>> and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again on his >>>>>> feet (not that the firmament to that time did put "idea" >>>>>> on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on their >>>>>> heads but to put them again headstand thinking and acting >>>>>> with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just >>>>>> with their brains. Then taking all options in translation >>>>>> even that of a Machine into consideration it does not seem >>>>>> to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of >>>>>> Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of >>>>>> activities thereafter. These activities are those arising >>>>>> from the properties of versatile objects in turn arising >>>>>> from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile >>>>>> needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think >>>>>> Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual >>>>>> activities as moments with the broadest idea of the >>>>>> Monistic Substantial Modes or States in Philosophical >>>>>> terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn integrate and >>>>>> are dissolved into Monism of Substance. >>>>>>> Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche >>>>>> (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one >>>>>> Substance) is already there with the organism actively and >>>>>> spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own , >>>>>> positioning its due object and moving along its contours >>>>>> and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to itself >>>>>> , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and >>>>>> bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as >>>>>> novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with >>>>>> Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with a huge >>>>>> gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of >>>>>> consciousness , now apparently ascending to "wording" and >>>>>> "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration) further >>>>>> "communication" as something indispensable and necessary >>>>>> and inevitable to the realization of life affairs. >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> Haydi >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: mike cole >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> To: Andy Blunden >>>>>> >>; "eXtended Mind, Culture, >>>>>> Activity" >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Cc: Alexander Surmava >>>>>> >>; ivan-dgf >>>>>> >>; Ivan >>>>>> Uemlianin >>; >>>>>> Haydi Zulfei >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50 >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented >>>>>> activity and communication >>>>>>> Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.Could someone post >>>>>> the Russian text next to the English so that it is >>>>>> possible to compare it with the translation? I spent >>>>>> several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of >>>>>> Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally defeated >>>>>> me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra rubles in >>>>>> my pocket. >>>>>>> Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us >>>>>> a "true" translation. >>>>>>> mike >>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden >>>>>> >> wrote: >>>>>>> The Progress Publishers English translation of "Activity and >>>>>>> Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of >>>>>>> Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, >>>>>>> material life of the material subject. In the narrower >>>>>>> sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a unit of >>>>>>> life, mediated by mental reflection, by >>>>>>> an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the >>>>>>> subject in the objective world. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The >>>>>>> Development of Mind" we have: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an >>>>>>> organism?s activity; the different activities that realise >>>>>>> its diverse vital relations with the surrounding reality are >>>>>>> essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore >>>>>>> differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively >>>>>>> different] types of activity according to the difference in >>>>>>> their objects. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses >>>>>>> "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has >>>>>>> been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for >>>>>>> English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean simply >>>>>>> "category." The second does the same, but in addition makes >>>>>>> it evident that the plural does not refer to different >>>>>>> activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the >>>>>>> possibility of forming a true concept of activity >>>>>> altogether. >>>>>>> With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is >>>>>>> simply that "such an initial *category* can only be >>>>>>> object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing >>>>>>> that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, >>>>>>> even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics. >>>>>> org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>> On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: >>>>>>>> Dear Andy! >>>>>>>> I am glad that our communication was resumed after many >>>>>>>> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and files >>>>>>>> and found that the problem of "object oriented activity OR >>>>>>>> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before >>>>>>>> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is serious and >>>>>>>> it deserves to return to it today. >>>>>>>> Last year I was close to being silent forever. >>>>>>>> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed >>>>>>>> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the >>>>>>>> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my >>>>>>>> theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my >>>>>>>> descendants :-). >>>>>>>> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not >>>>>>>> understand your question. What means the distinction >>>>>>>> between singular and plural number in your remark? Could >>>>>>>> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the >>>>>>>> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my >>>>>>>> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, >>>>>>>> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of >>>>>>>> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my dissertation >>>>>>>> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's "Theory of >>>>>>>> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, >>>>>>>> having understood the theoretic meaning of your claims to >>>>>>>> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily >>>>>>>> understand the essence of your objections to me. >>>>>>>> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I >>>>>>>> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a >>>>>>>> particular empirical case of its manifestation. Therefore, >>>>>>>> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just like >>>>>>>> Matter, Nature, or Substance. >>>>>>>> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come across >>>>>>>> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its >>>>>>>> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the >>>>>>>> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old >>>>>>>> philosophers and that only the numerous individual "atomic >>>>>>>> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really >>>>>>>> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar >>>>>>>> positivism and empiricism. >>>>>>>> However, all of this may not apply to your position ... >>>>>>>> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. >>>>>>>> Best wishes >>>>>>>> Sasha >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> >> ?????(?): >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'll ask Sasha a question. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial >>>>>>>> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it >>>>>> stands, >>>>>>>> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be >>>>>> that you >>>>>>>> are translating it from a Russian statement that is >>>>>> correct. >>>>>>>> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in when I >>>>>>>> say "every activity has an object." But in your expression >>>>>>>> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and >>>>>> unless >>>>>>>> you are a religious person is not something which can >>>>>> have a >>>>>>>> specific object. All English translations of A N Leontyev >>>>>>>> make this mistake which has caused no end of confusion >>>>>> among >>>>>>>> English-speakers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," just as >>>>>>>> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics. >>>>>> org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>>>>>>>> Dear Sasha, all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding >>>>>>>> response. I think you are right in your assertion that we >>>>>>>> are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of >>>>>>>> CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. However, one >>>>>>>> can see in the lack of response by other members?? that >>>>>>>> not everyone has the privilege of the time it requires to >>>>>>>> go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing >>>>>>>> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce and I >>>>>>>> hope it is/will be appreciated as such. >>>>>>>>> If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I quote >>>>>>>> from your response: >>>>>>>>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>>>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>>>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>>>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" >>>>>>>>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework >>>>>>>> according to which we are looking of the most original >>>>>>>> germ cell, the one from which all others can be >>>>>>>> developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I >>>>>>>> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree on >>>>>> that. >>>>>>>>> But ??once we are back to the development of a concrete >>>>>>>> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact that, for >>>>>>>> any child to participate in human forms of object-oriented >>>>>>>> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented >>>>>>>> activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular >>>>>>>> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into those >>>>>>>> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category >>>>>>>> devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with >>>>>>>> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you describe, is >>>>>>>> this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, or is >>>>>>>> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? >>>>>>>>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others answer >>>>>>>> (which I hope some do). >>>>>>>>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in >>>>>>>> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of teaching >>>>>>>> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this >>>>>>>> is only possible through *involvement* in collective >>>>>>>> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary >>>>>>>> over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is >>>>>>>> only possible in and through object-oriented activity). >>>>>>>> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional aspect of >>>>>>>> the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to >>>>>>>> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this >>>>>>>> object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all >>>>>>>> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually >>>>>>>> uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such >>>>>>>> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get >>>>>>>> collective activity without them? On this, and precisely >>>>>>>> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of Man", >>>>>>>> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in that >>>>>>>> case that communication is included in activity and is its >>>>>>>> essential component: without relation to another >>>>>>>> person(s), activity is impossible' (144). Although I not >>>>>>>> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I can't >>>>>>>> see how he can be wrong. >>>>>>>>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of >>>>>>>> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the >>>>>>>> category of object-oriented activity, is most primary. Let >>>>>>>> me also note that ?there are other authors who have >>>>>>>> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you >>>>>>>> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on >>>>>>>> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom >>>>>>>> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of auto-affection' ( >>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/ Incarnation-Philosophy- >>>>>> Studies-Phenomenology- Existential/dp/0810131269 >>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I wonder >>>>>>>> whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity >>>>>>>> and communication. Is not the distinction just an artefact >>>>>>>> of a partial understanding of what it means activity and >>>>>>>> what it means communicating. I still feel that >>>>>>>> communication, in the sense of addressivity that Mikhailov >>>>>>>> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for >>>>>>>> semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity >>>>>>>> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't >>>>>>>> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps >>>>>>>> naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication >>>>>>>> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in >>>>>>>> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I >>>>>>>> don't see how any practical activity can have any sense >>>>>>>> (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. >>>>>>>> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are >>>>>>>> talking about; one machines could perform on their own >>>>>>>> without consciousness. ? >>>>>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ______________________________ __ >>>>>>>>> From: Alexander Surmava >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 >>>>>>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>> > edu>; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo >>>>>>>> Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole >>>>>>>>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >>>>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>>>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >>>>>>>> aside) :-) >>>>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>>>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >>>>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >>>>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>>>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>>>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >>>>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>>>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >>>>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >>>>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >>>>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>>>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>>>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>>>>>>> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>>>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >>>>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >>>>>>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>>>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >>>>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>>>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>>>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>>>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >>>>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>>>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>>>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>>>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical >>>>>>>> verbiage>>>>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ >>>>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> >>>>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>>>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >>>>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >>>>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>>>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>>>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>>>>>>> Agitprop >>>>>>>>> sticks >>>>>>>>> in my teeth too, >>>>>>>>> and I?d rather >>>>>>>>> compose >>>>>>>>> romances for you - >>>>>>>>> more profit in it >>>>>>>>> and more charm. >>>>>>>>> But I >>>>>>>>> subdued >>>>>>>>> myself, >>>>>>>>> setting my heel >>>>>>>>> on the throat >>>>>>>>> of my own song. >>>>>>>>> Vladimir Mayakovski >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? ??? >>>>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>>>> ? ????? ?????, >>>>>>>>> ? ??? ?? >>>>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>>>> ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>>>>>>> ???????? ??? >>>>>>>>> ? ??????????. >>>>>>>>> ?? ? >>>>>>>>> ???? >>>>>>>>> ??????, >>>>>>>>> ????????? >>>>>>>>> ?? ????? >>>>>>>>> ??????????? ?????. >>>>>>>>> ???????? ?????????? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>>>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>>>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>>>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >>>>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >>>>>>>> to the concrete. >>>>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >>>>>>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>>>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>>>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>>>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>>>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>>>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>>>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>>>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>>> ????????????>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% >>>>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . >>>>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>>>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>>>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>>>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange >>>>>>>> reason was not published then or later. >>>>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>>>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. >>>>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>>>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >>>>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >>>>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>>>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>>>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>>>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>>>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>>>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >>>>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>>>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>>>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >>>>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >>>>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>>>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>>>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >>>>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>>>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>>>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>>>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >>>>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >>>>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>>>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>>>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >>>>>>>> return to this somehow later. >>>>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>>>>>>> work of 1988: >>>>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>>>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>>>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >>>>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>>>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>>>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>>>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>>>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>>>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>>>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>>>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>>>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >>>>>> activity. >>>>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >>>>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>>>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>>>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >>>>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>>>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>>>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>>>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>>>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >>>>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>>>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>>>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>>>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>>>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >>>>>> relation.? >>>>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>>>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>>>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>>>>>>> "addressing" to another person. >>>>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>>>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >>>>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>>>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >>>>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>>>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >>>>>> Ilyenkov. >>>>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >>>>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>>>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>>>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>>>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>>>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>>>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>>>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >>>>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>>>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>>>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>>>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>>>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >>>>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>>>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>>>>>>> social relations.. " >>>>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>>>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>>>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>>>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >>>>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >>>>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>>>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>>>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >>>>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>>>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>>>>>>> solved by ourselves. >>>>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>>>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>>>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was AN >>>>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>>>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>>>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >>>>>>>> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of >>>>>>>> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was inclined to >>>>>>>> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, >>>>>>>> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" >>>>>>>> were for communication. >>>>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>>>>>>> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal >>>>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>>>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>>>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>>>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >>>>>>>> rather indecent. >>>>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>>>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>>>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>>>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >>>>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>>>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>>>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>>>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>>>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>>>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>>>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>>>>>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>>>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >>>>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>>>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>>>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters >>>>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>>>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>>>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>>>>>>> "communication" and "activity." >>>>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>>>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>>>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>>>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. >>>>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >>>>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>>>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>>>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>>>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>>>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >>>>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >>>>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>>>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>>>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>>>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>>>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >>>>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >>>>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>>>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>>>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>>>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my >>>>>>>> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a >>>>>>>> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the >>>>>>>> relation of objective activity and "communication". In the >>>>>>>> same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, >>>>>>>> the active relation of the subject to the object and to >>>>>>>> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, >>>>>>>> indeed, any other, psychology. >>>>>>>>> ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????, >>>>>>>> ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, >>>>>>>> ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, >>>>>>>> ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>>>> ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. >>>>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >>>>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>>>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >>>>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>>>>>>> English text >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>>>> and read it to the end :-). >>>>>>>>> ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >>>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>>> ????????????>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> >>>>>>>>> ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? >>>>>>>> ??????????? ???????? >>>>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ >>>>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% >>>>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% >>>>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% >>>>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% >>>>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% >>>>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >>>>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>>>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >>>>>>>> aside) :-) >>>>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>>>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >>>>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >>>>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>>>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>>>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >>>>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>>>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >>>>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >>>>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >>>>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>>>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>>>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>>>>>>> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>>>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >>>>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >>>>>>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>>>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >>>>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>>>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>>>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>>>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >>>>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>>>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>>>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>>>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical >>>>>>>> verbiage>>>>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ >>>>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> >>>>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>>>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >>>>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >>>>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>>>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>>>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>>>>>>> Agitprop >>>>>>>>> sticks >>>>>>>>> in my teeth too, >>>>>>>>> and I?d rather >>>>>>>>> compose >>>>>>>>> romances for you - >>>>>>>>> more profit in it >>>>>>>>> and more charm. >>>>>>>>> But I >>>>>>>>> subdued >>>>>>>>> myself, >>>>>>>>> setting my heel >>>>>>>>> on the throat >>>>>>>>> of my own song. >>>>>>>>> Vladimir Mayakovski >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? ??? >>>>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>>>> ? ????? ?????, >>>>>>>>> ? ??? ?? >>>>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>>>> ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>>>>>>> ???????? ??? >>>>>>>>> ? ??????????. >>>>>>>>> ?? ? >>>>>>>>> ???? >>>>>>>>> ??????, >>>>>>>>> ????????? >>>>>>>>> ?? ????? >>>>>>>>> ??????????? ?????. >>>>>>>>> ???????? ?????????? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>>>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>>>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>>>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >>>>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >>>>>>>> to the concrete. >>>>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >>>>>>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>>>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>>>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>>>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>>>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>>>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>>>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>>>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>>> ????????????>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% >>>>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . >>>>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>>>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>>>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>>>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange >>>>>>>> reason was not published then or later. >>>>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>>>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. >>>>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>>>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >>>>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >>>>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>>>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>>>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>>>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>>>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>>>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >>>>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>>>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>>>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >>>>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >>>>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>>>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>>>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >>>>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>>>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>>>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>>>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >>>>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >>>>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>>>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>>>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >>>>>>>> return to this somehow later. >>>>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>>>>>>> work of 1988: >>>>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>>>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>>>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >>>>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>>>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>>>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>>>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>>>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>>>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>>>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>>>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>>>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >>>>>> activity. >>>>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >>>>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>>>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>>>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >>>>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>>>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>>>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>>>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>>>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >>>>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>>>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>>>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>>>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>>>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >>>>>> relation.? >>>>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>>>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>>>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>>>>>>> "addressing" to another person. >>>>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>>>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >>>>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>>>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >>>>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>>>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >>>>>> Ilyenkov. >>>>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >>>>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>>>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>>>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>>>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>>>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>>>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>>>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >>>>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>>>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>>>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>>>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>>>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >>>>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>>>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>>>>>>> social relations.. " >>>>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>>>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>>>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>>>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >>>>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >>>>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>>>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>>>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >>>>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>>>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>>>>>>> solved by ourselves. >>>>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>>>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>>>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was >>>>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>>>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>>>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >>>>>>>> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas >>>>>>>> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was >>>>>>>> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other >>>>>>>> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas >>>>>>>> "Leningraders" were for "communication". >>>>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>>>>>>> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a literal >>>>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>>>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>>>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>>>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >>>>>>>> rather indecent. >>>>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>>>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>>>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>>>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >>>>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>>>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>>>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>>>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>>>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>>>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>>>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>>>>>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>>>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >>>>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>>>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>>>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters >>>>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>>>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>>>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>>>>>>> "communication" and "activity." >>>>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>>>> object oriented activity, which is an attribute property >>>>>>>> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, >>>>>>>> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we >>>>>>>> will never get life or object oriented activity even with >>>>>>>> the greatest diligence. >>>>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >>>>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>>>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>>>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>>>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>>>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >>>>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >>>>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>>>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>>>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>>>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>>>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >>>>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >>>>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>>>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>>>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>>>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my diploma >>>>>>>> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist >>>>>>>> theoretical solution to the question of the relation of >>>>>>>> objective activity and "communication". In the same time, >>>>>>>> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active >>>>>>>> relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is >>>>>>>> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, >>>>>>>> any other, psychology. >>>>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >>>>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>>>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >>>>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>>>>>>> English text >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>>>> and read it to the end :-). >>>>>>>>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >>>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>>> ????????????>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> >>>>>>>>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short >>>>>>>> English one >>>>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ >>>>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% >>>>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% >>>>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% >>>>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% >>>>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% >>>>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. >>>>>>>>> Sasha >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > From ablunden@mira.net Mon Oct 16 15:16:12 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 09:16:12 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <1508190552093.73064@iped.uio.no> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <1508190552093.73064@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> The idea of producing for exchange being something essential outside of a world in which products are exchanged is to my mind something as curious as something being a hammer outside of a world in which there are nails. In preparing the conceptual foundation of /Capital/, Marx wrote the /Grundrisse /and in the Introduction he makes clear that production, distribution, exchange and consumption form a unity, a whole, and have to be analysed as such: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc2 "Thus production, distribution, exchange and consumption form a regular syllogism; production is the generality, distribution and exchange the particularity, and consumption the singularity in which the whole is joined together." Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 17/10/2017 8:49 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > So, not commodity exchange, but commodity production, > Sasha. That is of course in line with everything else you > can read in Marx, including the introductory paragraphs of > the German Ideology, and sounds right. Although I did not > think that 'exchange of goods' was synonymous > with 'exchange of commodities,' It is a whole different > thing, and what you are saying is that these are different > because of the type of relations of production. Sounds > right to me. > > > There are theories that take communication to be an > exchange of words, or of signs, or of ideas as you write, > a 'negotiation of meanings' others say. But there are > alternatives to that too, some of which characterise the > communicative relation as a productive force, an > orderliness that is self-generating and irreducible to any > of the communicating 'parties' or their messages. Led by > W-M Roth, we have written about this. Taking that > perspective, and this may be because I am 'only' > a student, and one much less qualified than the one you > speak about in your message, it becomes very difficult for > me to have communication to be somehow secondary. As it's > been suggested here. I feel more comfortable thinking of > 'productive activity' or object oriented activity, as > manifesting both as practical activity and > as communicative activity; but not first the one and only > later the other. > > > I read Marx saying the same when writing this in the > German Ideology: > > > "The production of ideas, of conceptions, of > consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the > material activity and the material intercourse of men-the > language of real life." > > > ?And then again, > > > "Language is as old as consciousness, language > is practical, real consciousness that exists for other men > as well, and only therefore does it also exist for me; > language, like consciousness, only arises from the need, > the necessity, of intercourse with other men." > > > I do not see here some hierarchy of primaries and > secondaries, but rather immanence, humanity as a > productive force that has practical and communicative > aspects. But I am happyto be in the process of being > corrected about this. > > > Alfredo > > > PS: The text by Ilyenkov that Sasha refers to is available > at Marxists.org, here: > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/abstract/index.htm > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Alexander Surmava > *Sent:* 16 October 2017 17:00 > *To:* ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; > Alfredo Jornet Gil; Mike Cole; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Ivan > Uemlianin; Martin John Packer > *Subject:* ???: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity and communication > > Dear colleagues, > > Excuse me for the delay in responding to your previous > posts about Leontiev and Vygotsky. The problems that we > are discussing are so serious that it takes a long time to > think about them and formulate an answer. Especially in > English :-). > > Therefore, the main answer I hope to put on the XMCA no > earlier than tomorrow. > > But suddenly the discussion turned into an extremely > interesting side. I mean analysis of the logic of "Das > Kapital". It is discussed what can and should be properly > considered the unit of analysis of both Capital and ?Das > Kapital?, the world system of capitalism and its > reflection in Marx? theoretic masterpiece. At least two > hypotheses have been voiced. The first is that such a unit > is a separate " business", a capitalist firm. And the > second, that the unit of analysis is the exchange of goods. > > I think that I can hardly agree with both hypotheses. > It seems to me that for Marx the first, most abstract > stage of analysis is in no case the exchange of goods, but > the commodity itself. And not an abstract commodity, but a > commodity produced under capitalistic relations. > Therefore, the unit of analysis is strictly speaking the > very production of such a commodity. > > The exchange of goods occurs not only under capitalism, > but also under slavery, and under feudalism. This is not > an independent, not substantial concept. The exchange > depends on the mode of production, and not vice versa. > > The same can be applied to "communication" in psychology, > to the "exchange" of ideas, caresses or beatings. This > communication does not occur due to certain immanent laws > of interpersonal communication, but entirely depends on > the collaborative object-oriented activity (predmetnoy > deyatelnosty), collective labor of historically determined > individuals. In turn, the nature of their collective work, > depends not on the distribution of genes in their genomes, > but on the distribution of the means of production, on the > distribution of labor instruments. Let us emphasize, not > on the distribution of verbal signs, not on ideology, but > on the distribution of the most material weapons of human > activity. > > With communist greetings :-) , > Sasha > > P.S. By the way, I enthusiastically welcome the fact that > our discussion has switched from discussing Vygotsky's > "units" to discussing the most abstract category of "Das > Kapital" of Marx, that is, from a pale copy, to the > original. By the way, in the future it might be > interesting to re-read the "Dialectics of the abstract and > concrete in scientific and theoretical thinking" by EV > Ilyenkov. This work contains an elaborate analysis of the > method of Marx, in comparison with which Vygotsky's > methodological reflexion seems to be something quite > student-like. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *??:* Andy Blunden > *????:* Alfredo Jornet Gil ; > "xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu" > *??????????:* ???????????, 16 ??????? 2017 15:51 > *????:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and > communication > > Capitals are units of capital. The only whole is the world > market, within which units of capital grow and shrink, > consume one another and so on. A capital (i.e. a firm) is > not a "whole" in the true sense of the word, and I would > have an issue with anyone who wants to treat a firm as a > "system of activity" if there were any implication that this > means a "closed system." > > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 16/10/2017 11:42 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > > > Your point in the first paragraph is what I was trying to > > convey to Haidy, to see if there is room there for common > > ground between your positions. ? > > > > Alfredo > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Andy Blunden > > > *Sent:* 16 October 2017 14:39 > > *To:* Alfredo Jornet Gil; xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > > activity and communication > > > > > > Yes, yes, Alfredo! But what is often overlooked is that > > the aim of Marx's research is not commodity exchange (in > > itself a harmless business) but capital. But he does not > > *start* with capital, but goes down to its roots, its > > source, in the circulation of commodities. > > > > Compare with Vygotsky's analysis of the intellect > > (thinking). Word meanings are *not* the subject matter of > > Vygotsky's research (who gives a damn!?), but concepts! > > But he does not start with concepts, but goes down to its > > roots, its source, in speech arising in collaborative > > activity. Actually, AN Leontyev missed this, as can be > > seen in his trenchant attack on Vygotsky in his ?Study of > > the Environment in the Pedological Works of L. S. Vygotsky". > > > > Andy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 16/10/2017 11:31 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > >> Damn! Commodity exchange is the unit of burgeons > society... I have to study more! Thanks Andy > >> > >> "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist > mode of production prevails, presents itself as ?an > immense accumulation of commodities,?[1] its unit being a > single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin > with the analysis of a commodity" > >> > >> Alfredo > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > on behalf of > Andy Blunden > > >> Sent: 16 October 2017 14:22 > >> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity > and communication > >> > >> Just to illustrate that I am being an orthodox Marxist > here, > >> from Chapter 10, Vol. 3 of Capital: > >> > >> "In the case of capitals of average, or approximately > >> average, composition, the price of production is thus > >> the same or almost the same as the value, and the profit > >> the same as the surplus-value produced by them. All > >> other capitals, of whatever composition, tend toward > >> this average under pressure of competition. But since > >> the capitals of average composition are of the same, or > >> approximately the same, structure as the average social > >> capital, all capitals have the tendency, regardless of > >> the surplus-value produced by them, to realize the > >> average profit, rather than their own surplus-value in > >> the price of their commodity, i.e., to realize the > >> prices of production." > >> > >> Andy > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> Andy Blunden > >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > >> On 16/10/2017 11:18 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > >>> No, Alfredo. A unit of capital is a firm (or company). > It is > >>> impossible to explain the formation of a rate of > profit (at > >>> least as Marx does in /Capital/) without the conception of > >>> units of capital, namely, firms and the competition > between > >>> them. Firms are of course, what Engestrom would call a > >>> "system of activity" or I would call a "project" and > >>> Leontyev almost could call an activity. But in the USSR > >>> there were no firms, only the state. It is perhaps A N > >>> Leonytev's greatest discovery that there are both > micro and > >>> molar units in any complex process. True in Psychology and > >>> true in political economy. Whereas exchange of commodities > >>> is an artefact-mediated action, a firm is an activity, a > >>> specific aggregate of actions, directed towards the > >>> quantitative maximisation of the value of the unit of > capital. > >>> > >>> English is not a perfect language either. : ) The word > >>> "consciousness" has the unfortunate connotation of being a > >>> mass noun (or continuous substance) whereas it is know > only, > >>> of course, in individual "consciousnesses" or "minds." But > >>> it sounds so clumsy to say "a consciousness." > >>> > >>> Andy > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> Andy Blunden > >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > >>> On 16/10/2017 11:07 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > >>>> Haydi, > >>>> > >>>> I think Andy does not mean 'one capital' versus > 'several capitals', for, if I read Andy adequately, > Capital is for him not a unit but rather the whole of > which commodity exchange is the unit. Thus, the germ cell > of Capital is thus not Capital, or 'a' Capital, which you > seem to attribute to Andy; just as I don't think he is > arguing that there is consciousness, and then many > consciousnesses. So it may be that you two agree more than > disagree, judging by your last paragraph. > >>>> > >>>> Whether his position on singular and plurals is more > or less adequate than another positions, that I leave it > up to the discussion. > >>>> > >>>> Alfredo > >>>> ________________________________________ > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > on behalf of > ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? > > >>>> Sent: 16 October 2017 09:45 > >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Andy Blunden > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity and communication > >>>> > >>>> Thank you David for your explanation! Though for me > it needs more than one read. > >>>> > >>>> The point was whether use of activity and activities > in Leontiev is a contradiction. Whoever L was and whatever > he believed in , he was not so negligent to the point of > posing activity first and immediately after that > recounting 'activities'. Translation ruled out a committed > error. Then such a blundering display must have a > justification rather than a misunderstanding in comprehension. > >>>> > >>>> In one sense all things are related. The more so with > the Monistic View. We have so many corporate and > incorporate things , two of them so problematic > communication and practical activity since Descartes and > we are determined to avoid Dualism and refer and return > all phenomena to that same thing , the one substance. In > the actuality of the world , there's nothing discrete , > that is , absolutely unrelated. Is that pretext for us not > to see this unbounded versatility and hues and dues as > distinct coloring? Maybe one of the ways was for man to > let Nature go unrestrained?? But man also did not come of > its own will. > >>>> > >>>> The sole way destined or open to Man was of its > Nature to engage with the surrounding. To deal with it > sensually and subjectively/agently. Then Man in one time > interpreted all phenomena as they appeared to him. But he > grew up further than his infantile period. He learnt to > delve into matters , go deeper and deeper. With one > spectacle (plane) he observed how that single substance > let its attributes multiply themselves into different > shapes and colors and Modes. With another plane of the one > spectacle observed the variation of the Modes themselves. > I mean Ontology and Epistemology not yet separate from > each other as I used a pair of planes for that matter. > >>>> > >>>> Then we usually don't use a nail-clipper for > alterations and manipulations in Genes. Or devices for > Genes for our feeding and nutrition. It is then within > these constraints that corporate and incorporate phenomena > differ. Singles and plurals differ. Discrete and the > indivisible differ. Parts and Moments differ. Wholes and > mere entities differ. A process and a product resulting > from that process differ. No justification to interchange > them because of the use of A in front of them. > >>>> > >>>> I wonder if this is true for others too. For me it's > difficult to accept to say "this capital that capital" > "those 8 capitals united" "capitals of the world dissolved > into unanimity". If I'm correct in this , it's , I think , > because Capital is a Whole , coming out of a long process > of functions and disfunctions , moments of circulations > and transient stagnation , booms and boosts and drawbacks > and failures. The moment of its conception in the exchange > of commodities up to the discovery of the private > appropriation of the surplus value to the point of > harnessing every means to penetrate each tight corner of > the big World. > >>>> > >>>> Best > >>>> Haydi > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> From: David Kellogg > > >>>> To: Andy Blunden >; "eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity" > > >>>> Sent: Monday, 16 October 2017, 2:21:12 > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity and communication > >>>> > >>>> Of course, neither an object nor a process is > discrete (or even, as Andy > >>>> says, "discreet"). Who can tell me where a mountain > river ends and the > >>>> alluvial plain begins? Certainly not Cezanne or the > phenomenologists who so > >>>> loved him. Yet a mountain is most assuredly an > object, just as surely > >>>> as climbing the mountain to ascertain its degree of > montagnitude is a > >>>> process. > >>>> > >>>> This last week I've been struggling through the > "Curriculum Reforms" > >>>> wrought by three right wing governments in Norway, > Finland, and New > >>>> Zealand. Like Catalonia, these are all countries > where unpopular coalitions > >>>> of right parties are replacing a much more popular > but obviously > >>>> unsuccessful social democratic coalition of left > parties. In Norway and in > >>>> Finland, the coalition actually includes the far > right, neo-fascist, > >>>> anti-immigrant parties, and in New Zealand it > includes the ACT, that is, an > >>>> "association of consumers and taxpayers" whose main > interest is cutting > >>>> education budgets, starting by making teachers and > students fight each > >>>> other for scarce resources in the form of "block grants". > >>>> > >>>> Now, all of these governments are more or less bound > by something called > >>>> DeSeCo, which is short for Describe and Select > Competences. This is because > >>>> right-wing ideology sees education not as a public > good but as a commodity, > >>>> to be judged by tangible results and priced > accordingly. This presents a > >>>> real theoretical problem for right-wingers, because > they ALSO see that > >>>> "flexible labor markets" and "entrepreneurial spirit" > means that there > >>>> isn't any way of deciding on what skills or even what > knowledge the > >>>> "economy of the future" will demand. > >>>> > >>>> We can see this in the emphasis on "competence". > Competence is not a thing > >>>> or a process, and it is neither discrete nor > discreet. Of course, if you > >>>> are a linguist, competence is something Chomsky > thought of in the sixties, > >>>> an abstract form of knowledge in a hypothetical > native speaker-hearer in an > >>>> imaginary homogenous speech community. It is > "discrete" in the sense of > >>>> being nowhere and nowhen connectible to performance > in any way. It is > >>>> therefore "discreet" in the sense of being > untestable--as soon as you test > >>>> it, you have a form of performance, not competence. > It's like standing in > >>>> front of a classroom with a picture of a guy swimming > and trying to teach > >>>> the expression "i can swim". What you have in the > picture is not "I can > >>>> swim"; it's manifestly "he is swimming". > >>>> > >>>> But in DeSeCo, you get these lists of competences, > which are set up as if > >>>> they were discrete so you can list them on a > Powerpoint slide and sell them > >>>> to ministries of education. And the real selling > point is that, on the one > >>>> hand, because they are all "meta-skills" and > "meta-knowledges", they don't > >>>> have any practical outcome or real commitment to a > job and a livelihood. > >>>> And on the other, they sound terribly powerful when > you phrase them as > >>>> "learning to learn" or "transversal competence" or > "meta-cognitive skills" > >>>> or something like that. Jobs, in other words, are > discretionary. After > >>>> centuries of promising jobs and livelhood in return > for school and boredom, > >>>> the Western economies have decided that sticks are > cheaper than carrots, > >>>> and the thing to do is simply to rule people who > don't have educational > >>>> certificates out of the job market rather than try to > provide > >>>> actual know-how and factual know-that. > >>>> > >>>> Here are my four favorites (i.e. the four that we > stress in our own > >>>> curricular reform here in South Korea): > >>>> > >>>> interpersonal competence (sociability, the ability to > 'be alone with > >>>> others' as Hughlings Jackson put it) > >>>> cultural competence (enculturation, the ability to > understand traditions, > >>>> mores, and norms) > >>>> creative competence (intelligence, innovation, yadda > yadda) > >>>> individual competence (the ability to dress yourself, > feed yourself, and > >>>> show up for an interview where you will not be > offered a job) > >>>> > >>>> Vygotsky, as usual, has a better idea--it's a > mountain. We just turn the > >>>> DeSeCO PPT upside down. Then we add each > competence---freedom, creative > >>>> intelligence, encultured habits and tastes, and > instiinctive > >>>> sociability--as a superstructure erected on the > basis of the previous one: > >>>> > >>>> free will (the ability to make choices that are not > necessarily intelligent > >>>> or habitual or instinctive) > >>>> intelligence (the ability to make choices that are > not habitual or > >>>> instinctive but nevertheless adaptive) > >>>> enculturation (the ability to make choices that are > not instinctive but > >>>> conform to the choices that have proven successful in > the now socialized > >>>> environment) > >>>> instinct (the ability to make choices that are > responsive to the > >>>> environment and which conform to the choices that > have proven successful in > >>>> phylogenesis) > >>>> > >>>> Are theses objects? Of course, if we say so. And > processes? Well, how else > >>>> could they have come about? What they are not, > however, is either > >>>> "discrete" or "discreet": they are clearly linked to > each other, and they > >>>> are all linked, through the lower layer, to > adaptations ot the environment. > >>>> > >>>> And there's the rub--where the rubber meets the road. > The real question, > >>>> for our teachers and for our children, is about what > will happen to them > >>>> now that these competences can no longer be redeemed > in jobs. Will the > >>>> anti-Faustian bargain of exchanging your youth for a > >>>> stable middle-aged livelihood survive? > >>>> > >>>> David Kellogg > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Haydi, you say "AN activity is not a thing ; it's a > >>>>> process." I wonder then what is a thing which is not > also a > >>>>> process? (I interpret "thing" as meaning "something > >>>>> discrete," otherwise your objection makes no sense.) The > >>>>> point is that Hegel does not make this dichotomy - every > >>>>> thing is also a process and vice versa. That a > process is > >>>>> also discreet is important because it is only thanks > to its > >>>>> discreteness that we can cognise the process and in fact > >>>>> only thanks to its discreteness that a process can > affect > >>>>> anything else. To speak of processes which are not also > >>>>> discrete is to speak in abstractions. > >>>>> > >>>>> On this point, when Hegel puts ideas above matter, > it has to > >>>>> be realised that for Hegel "ideas" are social > practices - he > >>>>> is simply place human practice at the centre of > human life > >>>>> and its comprehension, rather than the mechanical and > >>>>> chemical processes of Nature. If you think that > "ideas" are > >>>>> simply chimera inside our heads, then, of course, > Hegel's > >>>>> idealism seems like madness. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, all the Marxists have blasted Hegel. As they must. > >>>>> Otherwise they must end up advocates of Constitutional > >>>>> Monarchy. But while Marx uses almost every mention > he makes > >>>>> of Hegel to criticise him, often in extreme terms, > it can go > >>>>> unnoticed the extent to which in practice Marx > follows Hegel > >>>>> in philosophy. Of course Marx is not equal to Hegel, but > >>>>> simple formulae do not contribute to understanding > the relation. > >>>>> > >>>>> Andy > >>>>> > >>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> Andy Blunden > >>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > >>>>> On 15/10/2017 6:51 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > >>>>>> Andy, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Let me first apologize to David Kellog because in > others' > >>>>>> wandering and perplexity it was he who in his > reading of > >>>>>> Gramsci's prison letters came across this point and > made > >>>>>> you not only accept the inappropriateness of Hegel's > >>>>>> headstand as Crowning every worldly affair deriving > from > >>>>>> the People's Heads "Idea" , "Absolute" but also > >>>>>> intensifying this point with more examples and > references > >>>>>> from Engels' "utopian versus genuine socialism" on your > >>>>>> part. Of course you've been helping us on many > occasions > >>>>>> and you're very welcome for this nothing to be denied. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> At this point we have no problem with translation. > >>>>>> Leontiev meant it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Suppose that ANL does not know "individual" which > is very > >>>>>> ambiguous because in what then one should seek the > >>>>>> embodiment of the "particular" and if one takes the > very > >>>>>> particular as individual , then everything gets > mixed up . > >>>>>> Then what about you who stick firmly on individual > >>>>>> discrete detached activities as an objection to Sasha's > >>>>>> sole ACTIVITY as theoretical understanding. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As you well know even AN activity is not a thing ; > it's a > >>>>>> process. And you once distinguished between GENERAL > WORK > >>>>>> ACTIVITY and LABOUR ACTIVITY or VALORIZATION ACTIVITY > >>>>>> which was quite right and timely though you > recently gave > >>>>>> differing definitions in no way harmonious to your > >>>>>> previous definitions. But the main problem is blending > >>>>>> clarity in expression with concrete in theory. No doubt > >>>>>> you're a Fan of Hegel. I should repeat myself : > Hegel is a > >>>>>> hero of theoretical concepts. In theorizing , and > for him > >>>>>> to explicate the Essence of Phenomena , he begins with > >>>>>> apparently concrete things as ABSTRACTS finally reaches > >>>>>> CONCRETE UNIVERSALS as concepts. And here we again very > >>>>>> surprisingly see you put your finger upon what you > should > >>>>>> have known in person is contrary to your own erudition. > >>>>>> Turning Hegel down as believing in discrete abstracts. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And now to his son's comment : What individual are you > >>>>>> pursuing? Your Hegel sees phenomena in their relations. > >>>>>> According to him and also according to ANL ACTIVITY > as a > >>>>>> unit of Life is Molar non-additive. He even does > not see > >>>>>> operations as single acts. It's a matter of the > angle of > >>>>>> vision not detachment and concreteness. If his son had > >>>>>> talked of concreteness in moments of activity , > then you > >>>>>> were right in your objections and oppositions. You > please > >>>>>> give us your last definition of activity here (not in > >>>>>> lengthy references) so that we can have a discerning > >>>>>> option. > >>>>>> So far to remove the problem we should accept > operations > >>>>>> are separately and independently carried out ; > actions in > >>>>>> their own are carried out ; activities are carried out > >>>>>> arbitrarily. And these are done to the realization > of man > >>>>>> as the ensemble of social relations based on some > >>>>>> infrastructure. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hegel's metaphor has been thrown back at him by Marx , > >>>>>> Engels , Lenin , Vygotsky , Ilyenko , and many > others. If > >>>>>> you like to stand above all Giants of Marxism , it's > >>>>>> something perfectly and absolutely Personal as you're > >>>>>> speaking out loud! Then why give us so many references. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Haydi > >>>>>> > >>>>>> P.S. Alfredo! Though you have my previous private > response > >>>>>> concerning the matters you pose I see myself > accountable > >>>>>> to rewrite them to the Public. Thanks! > >>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>> *From:* Andy Blunden > > >>>>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, 15 October 2017, 5:35:40 > >>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity > >>>>>> and communication > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Haydi, partly the problem with ANL's > >>>>>> philosophy-as-we-know-it is simply a product of its > >>>>>> translation into English. But partly it is also in his > >>>>>> philosophy. As Victor Kaptelinin first pointed out > (so far > >>>>>> as I know), ANL knows the universal and the > particular but > >>>>>> he does not know the individual. And his son's > comment that > >>>>>> ANL did not conceive of Activity as being discrete > proves > >>>>>> this to be the case. Thus his concept of Activity > is not a > >>>>>> fully concrete concept. And this is not a product of > >>>>>> translation. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As David Kellogg has kindly pointed out to me, it > was Hegel > >>>>>> who actually first introduced this metaphor of people > >>>>>> "walking (or standing) on their heads." Personally, > I don't > >>>>>> think it has ever helped anyone understand the > defect of > >>>>>> Hegel's philosophy to throw this metaphor back at > him. As > >>>>>> demonstrated in this issue (the concept of > activity) it was > >>>>>> Hegel who understood that a concept must have all three > >>>>>> moments - universal, particular and individual. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Andy > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>> Andy Blunden > >>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > >>>>>> On 15/10/2017 9:24 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > >>>>>>> Dear Mike, > >>>>>>> Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an > >>>>>> activist for his concreteness and clarifications is > >>>>>> crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot > >>>>>> ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes , > Parts , > >>>>>> and Moments. He personally provided us with > examples from > >>>>>> Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they > convert > >>>>>> Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced > with the > >>>>>> same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most > >>>>>> valuable contribution) does not begin with the > individual > >>>>>> case in isolation which phenomenologically > speaking (in > >>>>>> contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for > >>>>>> appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not > obtained > >>>>>> because one instance is considered detached from all > >>>>>> relations and its subservience to the service of the > >>>>>> Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is > particular in > >>>>>> some feature/s. And these particulars are > essential. With > >>>>>> other particulars in other individuals they are related > >>>>>> actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense , > this whole > >>>>>> could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life > itself. > >>>>>> Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is , > >>>>>> with category and concept only therefore , > following Marx > >>>>>> and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again > on his > >>>>>> feet (not that the firmament to that time did put > "idea" > >>>>>> on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on > their > >>>>>> heads but to put them again headstand thinking and > acting > >>>>>> with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just > >>>>>> with their brains. Then taking all options in > translation > >>>>>> even that of a Machine into consideration it does > not seem > >>>>>> to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of > >>>>>> Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of > >>>>>> activities thereafter. These activities are those > arising > >>>>>> from the properties of versatile objects in turn > arising > >>>>>> from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile > >>>>>> needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think > >>>>>> Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual > >>>>>> activities as moments with the broadest idea of the > >>>>>> Monistic Substantial Modes or States in Philosophical > >>>>>> terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn > integrate and > >>>>>> are dissolved into Monism of Substance. > >>>>>>> Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche > >>>>>> (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one > >>>>>> Substance) is already there with the organism > actively and > >>>>>> spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own , > >>>>>> positioning its due object and moving along its > contours > >>>>>> and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to > itself > >>>>>> , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and > >>>>>> bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as > >>>>>> novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with > >>>>>> Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with > a huge > >>>>>> gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of > >>>>>> consciousness , now apparently ascending to > "wording" and > >>>>>> "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration) > further > >>>>>> "communication" as something indispensable and > necessary > >>>>>> and inevitable to the realization of life affairs. > >>>>>>> Best > >>>>>>> Haydi > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> From: mike cole > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> To: Andy Blunden > >>>>>> >>; "eXtended Mind, Culture, > >>>>>> Activity" > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> Cc: Alexander Surmava > >>>>>> >>; ivan-dgf > >>>>>> > >>; Ivan > >>>>>> Uemlianin >>; > >>>>>> Haydi Zulfei > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50 > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > >>>>>> activity and communication > >>>>>>> Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.Could someone post > >>>>>> the Russian text next to the English so that it is > >>>>>> possible to compare it with the translation? I spent > >>>>>> several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of > >>>>>> Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally > defeated > >>>>>> me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra > rubles in > >>>>>> my pocket. > >>>>>>> Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can > warrant us > >>>>>> a "true" translation. > >>>>>>> mike > >>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden > >>>>>> > >> wrote: > >>>>>>> The Progress Publishers English translation of > "Activity and > >>>>>>> Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of > >>>>>>> Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, > >>>>>>> material life of the material subject. In the > narrower > >>>>>>> sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is > a unit of > >>>>>>> life, mediated by mental reflection, by > >>>>>>> an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the > >>>>>>> subject in the objective world. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The > >>>>>>> Development of Mind" we have: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an > >>>>>>> organism?s activity; the different activities that > realise > >>>>>>> its diverse vital relations with the surrounding > reality are > >>>>>>> essentially determined by their object; we shall > therefore > >>>>>>> differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively > >>>>>>> different] types of activity according to the > difference in > >>>>>>> their objects. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses > >>>>>>> "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The > effect has > >>>>>>> been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for > >>>>>>> English-speakers. It has generally been taken to > mean simply > >>>>>>> "category." The second does the same, but in > addition makes > >>>>>>> it evident that the plural does not refer to different > >>>>>>> activities, but to *types* of activity. This > blocks the > >>>>>>> possibility of forming a true concept of activity > >>>>>> altogether. > >>>>>>> With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your > claim is > >>>>>>> simply that "such an initial *category* can only be > >>>>>>> object-oriented activity" I have no objection, > supposing > >>>>>>> that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method > of units, > >>>>>>> even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Andy > >>>>>>> ------------------------------ > >>>>>> ------------------------------ > >>>>>>> Andy Blunden > >>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics. > >>>>>> org/ablunden/index.htm > >>>>>>> On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: > >>>>>>>> Dear Andy! > >>>>>>>> I am glad that our communication was resumed > after many > >>>>>>>> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters > and files > >>>>>>>> and found that the problem of "object oriented > activity OR > >>>>>>>> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 > before > >>>>>>>> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is > serious and > >>>>>>>> it deserves to return to it today. > >>>>>>>> Last year I was close to being silent forever. > >>>>>>>> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy > postponed > >>>>>>>> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I > had the > >>>>>>>> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my > >>>>>>>> theoretical studies without entrusting this > matter to my > >>>>>>>> descendants :-). > >>>>>>>> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not > >>>>>>>> understand your question. What means the distinction > >>>>>>>> between singular and plural number in your > remark? Could > >>>>>>>> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the > >>>>>>>> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my > >>>>>>>> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not > coincide, > >>>>>>>> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the > theory of > >>>>>>>> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my > dissertation > >>>>>>>> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's > "Theory of > >>>>>>>> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, > >>>>>>>> having understood the theoretic meaning of your > claims to > >>>>>>>> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily > >>>>>>>> understand the essence of your objections to me. > >>>>>>>> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev > and I > >>>>>>>> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and > not as a > >>>>>>>> particular empirical case of its manifestation. > Therefore, > >>>>>>>> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. > Just like > >>>>>>>> Matter, Nature, or Substance. > >>>>>>>> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we > come across > >>>>>>>> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its > >>>>>>>> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the > >>>>>>>> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old > >>>>>>>> philosophers and that only the numerous > individual "atomic > >>>>>>>> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number > really > >>>>>>>> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar > >>>>>>>> positivism and empiricism. > >>>>>>>> However, all of this may not apply to your > position ... > >>>>>>>> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this > issue. > >>>>>>>> Best wishes > >>>>>>>> Sasha > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden > >>>>>>>> > >> > ?????(?): > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I'll ask Sasha a question. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial > >>>>>>>> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it > >>>>>> stands, > >>>>>>>> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be > >>>>>> that you > >>>>>>>> are translating it from a Russian statement that is > >>>>>> correct. > >>>>>>>> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as > in when I > >>>>>>>> say "every activity has an object." But in your > expression > >>>>>>>> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and > >>>>>> unless > >>>>>>>> you are a religious person is not something which can > >>>>>> have a > >>>>>>>> specific object. All English translations of A N > Leontyev > >>>>>>>> make this mistake which has caused no end of > confusion > >>>>>> among > >>>>>>>> English-speakers. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Am I right? You meant "activities" not > "activity," just as > >>>>>>>> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Andy > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ------------------------------ > >>>>>> ------------------------------ > >>>>>>>> Andy Blunden > >>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics. > >>>>>> org/ablunden/index.htm > >>>>>>>> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Dear Sasha, all, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding > >>>>>>>> response. I think you are right in your assertion > that we > >>>>>>>> are discussing some of the most fundamental > problems of > >>>>>>>> CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. > However, one > >>>>>>>> can see in the lack of response by other > members?? that > >>>>>>>> not everyone has the privilege of the time it > requires to > >>>>>>>> go through all of it. In any case, I continue > believing > >>>>>>>> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to > produce and I > >>>>>>>> hope it is/will be appreciated as such. > >>>>>>>>> If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, > I quote > >>>>>>>> from your response: > >>>>>>>>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial > category, > >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, > then for us > >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We > will > >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which > one can > >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including > >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious > that > >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented > >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication > from the > >>>>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. > But from > >>>>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and > other such > >>>>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or > >>>>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" > >>>>>>>>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework > >>>>>>>> according to which we are looking of the most > original > >>>>>>>> germ cell, the one from which all others can be > >>>>>>>> developed??, then object-oriented activity is > primary. I > >>>>>>>> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to > agree on > >>>>>> that. > >>>>>>>>> But ??once we are back to the development of a > concrete > >>>>>>>> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact > that, for > >>>>>>>> any child to participate in human forms of > object-oriented > >>>>>>>> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented > >>>>>>>> activity that also characterise any other > multi-cellular > >>>>>>>> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise > into those > >>>>>>>> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any > category > >>>>>>>> devised to account for human psyche needs to > agree with > >>>>>>>> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you > describe, is > >>>>>>>> this germ cell initial to human concrete > psychology, or is > >>>>>>>> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? > >>>>>>>>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others > answer > >>>>>>>> (which I hope some do). > >>>>>>>>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question > a try: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be > primary in > >>>>>>>> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of > teaching > >>>>>>>> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies > show, this > >>>>>>>> is only possible through *involvement* in collective > >>>>>>>> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is > primary > >>>>>>>> over, for example, the teaching of a language > (which is > >>>>>>>> only possible in and through object-oriented > activity). > >>>>>>>> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional > aspect of > >>>>>>>> the relation between adult and child, inherently > tied to > >>>>>>>> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this > >>>>>>>> object-oriented activity already ?characterised > by all > >>>>>>>> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually > >>>>>>>> uplifting' in the very moment in which we > describe such > >>>>>>>> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do > you get > >>>>>>>> collective activity without them? On this, and > precisely > >>>>>>>> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence > of Man", > >>>>>>>> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident > in that > >>>>>>>> case that communication is included in activity > and is its > >>>>>>>> essential component: without relation to another > >>>>>>>> person(s), activity is impossible' (144). > Although I not > >>>>>>>> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, > here I can't > >>>>>>>> see how he can be wrong. > >>>>>>>>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of > >>>>>>>> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the > >>>>>>>> category of object-oriented activity, is most > primary. Let > >>>>>>>> me also note that ?there are other authors who have > >>>>>>>> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity > that you > >>>>>>>> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on > >>>>>>>> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom > >>>>>>>> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of > auto-affection' ( > >>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/ Incarnation-Philosophy- > >>>>>> Studies-Phenomenology- Existential/dp/0810131269 > >>>>>>>> ) > >>>>>>>>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology, > I wonder > >>>>>>>> whether ?we should be forced to choose between > activity > >>>>>>>> and communication. Is not the distinction just an > artefact > >>>>>>>> of a partial understanding of what it means > activity and > >>>>>>>> what it means communicating. I still feel that > >>>>>>>> communication, in the sense of addressivity that > Mikhailov > >>>>>>>> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, > or for > >>>>>>>> semiotics. If the question is whether practical > activity > >>>>>>>> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. > You don't > >>>>>>>> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my > perhaps > >>>>>>>> naive view, we ought to have a notion of > communication > >>>>>>>> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' > (as in > >>>>>>>> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), > for I > >>>>>>>> don't see how any practical activity can have any > sense > >>>>>>>> (and so be achieved) for any human outside > addressivity. > >>>>>>>> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity > we are > >>>>>>>> talking about; one machines could perform on > their own > >>>>>>>> without consciousness. ? > >>>>>>>>> Best wishes, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Alfredo > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ______________________________ __ > >>>>>>>>> From: Alexander Surmava > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 > >>>>>>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > edu>; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo > >>>>>>>> Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole > >>>>>>>>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > >>>>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more > interesting, > >>>>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But > before > >>>>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? > (replica > >>>>>>>> aside) :-) > >>>>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if > it is > >>>>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical > approach, > >>>>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its > framework > >>>>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a > >>>>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually > considered the > >>>>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. > >>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our > discussions > >>>>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the > >>>>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. > >>>>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the > principle > >>>>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism > compatible > >>>>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that > is, it is > >>>>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and > >>>>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. > Or maybe > >>>>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to > add to > >>>>>>>> these two principles something third, say - > "subjectness"? > >>>>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and > similar > >>>>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of > our inquiry > >>>>>>>> and without answering them in the most general > form, we > >>>>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. > But this > >>>>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, > >>>>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic > theoretical > >>>>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that > >>>>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological > theory, > >>>>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially > >>>>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a > consistently > >>>>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the > >>>>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical > >>>>>>>> verbiage >>>>>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ > >>>>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> > >>>>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical > >>>>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions > between > >>>>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. > >>>>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting > for me too > >>>>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to > education and > >>>>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from > Central > >>>>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > >>>>>>>>> Agitprop > >>>>>>>>> sticks > >>>>>>>>> in my teeth too, > >>>>>>>>> and I?d rather > >>>>>>>>> compose > >>>>>>>>> romances for you - > >>>>>>>>> more profit in it > >>>>>>>>> and more charm. > >>>>>>>>> But I > >>>>>>>>> subdued > >>>>>>>>> myself, > >>>>>>>>> setting my heel > >>>>>>>>> on the throat > >>>>>>>>> of my own song. > >>>>>>>>> Vladimir > Mayakovski > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ? ??? > >>>>>>>>> ???????? > >>>>>>>>> ? ????? ?????, > >>>>>>>>> ? ??? ?? > >>>>>>>>> ???????? > >>>>>>>>> ??????? ?? ??? ? > >>>>>>>>> ???????? ??? > >>>>>>>>> ? ??????????. > >>>>>>>>> ?? ? > >>>>>>>>> ???? > >>>>>>>>> ??????, > >>>>>>>>> ????????? > >>>>>>>>> ?? ????? > >>>>>>>>> ??????????? ?????. > >>>>>>>>> ???????? ?????????? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again > forced > >>>>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to > >>>>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces > us to > >>>>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, > literally > >>>>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the > abstract > >>>>>>>> to the concrete. > >>>>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting > questions > >>>>>>>> about how to understand the principle of > interaction as > >>>>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented > >>>>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will > answer > >>>>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed > >>>>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated > by me in > >>>>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago > ORIGIN OF > >>>>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian > >>>>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? > >>>>>>>> ???????????? >>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% > 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% > >>>>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . > >>>>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the > >>>>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is > >>>>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in > published in > >>>>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange > >>>>>>>> reason was not published then or later. > >>>>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your > questions, > >>>>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text > >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. > >>>>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would > like to > >>>>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the > interaction > >>>>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in > no case > >>>>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two > >>>>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false > approach > >>>>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism > has in my > >>>>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that > should > >>>>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is > obvious > >>>>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is > characteristic of the > >>>>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling > called the > >>>>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object > >>>>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are > not dealing > >>>>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with > the logic > >>>>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? > >>>>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the > >>>>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, > "positing" > >>>>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, > >>>>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the > chemism > >>>>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the > sense > >>>>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its > active and > >>>>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic > interaction, in > >>>>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is > active, > >>>>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, > objective. There > >>>>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, > but let us > >>>>>>>> return to this somehow later. > >>>>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my > graduation > >>>>>>>> work of 1988: > >>>>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) > relation > >>>>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction > of two > >>>>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the > sun taken > >>>>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is > >>>>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It > >>>>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively > due to > >>>>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) > >>>>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? > >>>>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the > plant > >>>>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). > >>>>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet > relation > >>>>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, > spontaneously > >>>>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital > >>>>>> activity. > >>>>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive > relation, > >>>>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not > >>>>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being > stimulated. > >>>>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism > does not > >>>>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with > >>>>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external > influence. > >>>>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it > is not > >>>>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) > can be > >>>>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the > organism > >>>>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external > thing > >>>>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into > >>>>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it > >>>>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of > >>>>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive > >>>>>> relation.? > >>>>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and > >>>>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the > >>>>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special > Mikhailovsky's > >>>>>>>> "addressing" to another person. > >>>>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered > >>>>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have > to try to > >>>>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human > consciousness > >>>>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has > been and > >>>>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology > >>>>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and > >>>>>> Ilyenkov. > >>>>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If > we want > >>>>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the > >>>>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract > to the > >>>>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers > >>>>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of > >>>>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct > method, to > >>>>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical > >>>>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to > choose one > >>>>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at > first > >>>>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a > >>>>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of > course > >>>>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic > >>>>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that > ".?the human > >>>>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single > >>>>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the > >>>>>>>> social relations.. " > >>>>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in > Vygotsky's > >>>>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a > purely > >>>>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to > >>>>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical > psychology > >>>>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from > Marx, then > >>>>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely > >>>>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us > with > >>>>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which > of them it > >>>>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first > place, > >>>>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have > to be > >>>>>>>> solved by ourselves. > >>>>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this > >>>>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A > >>>>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose > leader was AN > >>>>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov > undoubtedly > >>>>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object > oriented > >>>>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the > first, second > >>>>>>>> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a > group of > >>>>>>>> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was > inclined to > >>>>>>>> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, > >>>>>>>> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas > "Leningraders" > >>>>>>>> were for communication. > >>>>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our > >>>>>>>> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a > literal > >>>>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, > but our > >>>>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, > such a > >>>>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the > >>>>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered > something > >>>>>>>> rather indecent. > >>>>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of > >>>>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also > >>>>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic > victory, > >>>>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by > organizing > >>>>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was > >>>>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was > >>>>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the > post of > >>>>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the > dean of > >>>>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a > >>>>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader > >>>>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful > people in > >>>>>>>> the ideological department of the Central > Committee of > >>>>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of > scientific > >>>>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful > discussions in > >>>>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the > >>>>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed > supporters > >>>>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. > Davydov's > >>>>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology > of RAE > >>>>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. > >>>>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to > >>>>>>>> "communication" and "activity." > >>>>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial > category, > >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, > then for us > >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We > will > >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which > one can > >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including > >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious > that > >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented > >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication > from the > >>>>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. > But from > >>>>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and > other such > >>>>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or > >>>>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. > >>>>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, > but a fact > >>>>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive > >>>>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner > reflexivity and > >>>>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is > first > >>>>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic > level, > >>>>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex > dialectic > >>>>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in > the course > >>>>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is > traced. > >>>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external > >>>>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, > >>>>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, > >>>>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a > >>>>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of > man. > >>>>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive > Activity" > >>>>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are > taken not > >>>>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of > >>>>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, > but as > >>>>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s > >>>>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. > >>>>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me > in my > >>>>>>>> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a > >>>>>>>> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the > >>>>>>>> relation of objective activity and > "communication". In the > >>>>>>>> same time, reflexive object oriented activity, > that is, > >>>>>>>> the active relation of the subject to the object > and to > >>>>>>>> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the > human, as, > >>>>>>>> indeed, any other, psychology. > >>>>>>>>> ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? > ??? ????, > >>>>>>>> ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, > ?????? ???, > >>>>>>>> ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? > ??????????, > >>>>>>>> ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? > ????? > >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS > >>>>>>>> ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. > >>>>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most > suitable > >>>>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, > >>>>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the > problem of the > >>>>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large > >>>>>>>> English text > >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS > >>>>>>>> and read it to the end :-). > >>>>>>>>> ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE > AND HUMAN > >>>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? > ???????????? > >>>>>>>> ???????????? >>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% > 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% > D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> > >>>>>>>>> ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? > >>>>>>>> ??????????? ???????? > >>>>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ > >>>>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% > >>>>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% > >>>>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% > >>>>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% > >>>>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% > >>>>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% > BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 > >>>>>>>> . > >>>>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > >>>>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more > interesting, > >>>>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But > before > >>>>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? > (replica > >>>>>>>> aside) :-) > >>>>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if > it is > >>>>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical > approach, > >>>>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its > framework > >>>>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a > >>>>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually > considered the > >>>>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. > >>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our > discussions > >>>>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the > >>>>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. > >>>>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the > principle > >>>>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism > compatible > >>>>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that > is, it is > >>>>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and > >>>>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. > Or maybe > >>>>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to > add to > >>>>>>>> these two principles something third, say - > "subjectness"? > >>>>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and > similar > >>>>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of > our inquiry > >>>>>>>> and without answering them in the most general > form, we > >>>>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. > But this > >>>>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, > >>>>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic > theoretical > >>>>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that > >>>>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological > theory, > >>>>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially > >>>>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a > consistently > >>>>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the > >>>>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical > >>>>>>>> verbiage >>>>>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ > >>>>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> > >>>>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical > >>>>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions > between > >>>>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. > >>>>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting > for me too > >>>>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to > education and > >>>>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from > Central > >>>>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > >>>>>>>>> Agitprop > >>>>>>>>> sticks > >>>>>>>>> in my teeth too, > >>>>>>>>> and I?d rather > >>>>>>>>> compose > >>>>>>>>> romances for you - > >>>>>>>>> more profit in it > >>>>>>>>> and more charm. > >>>>>>>>> But I > >>>>>>>>> subdued > >>>>>>>>> myself, > >>>>>>>>> setting my heel > >>>>>>>>> on the throat > >>>>>>>>> of my own song. > >>>>>>>>> Vladimir > Mayakovski > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ? ??? > >>>>>>>>> ???????? > >>>>>>>>> ? ????? ?????, > >>>>>>>>> ? ??? ?? > >>>>>>>>> ???????? > >>>>>>>>> ??????? ?? ??? ? > >>>>>>>>> ???????? ??? > >>>>>>>>> ? ??????????. > >>>>>>>>> ?? ? > >>>>>>>>> ???? > >>>>>>>>> ??????, > >>>>>>>>> ????????? > >>>>>>>>> ?? ????? > >>>>>>>>> ??????????? ?????. > >>>>>>>>> ???????? ?????????? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again > forced > >>>>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to > >>>>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces > us to > >>>>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, > literally > >>>>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the > abstract > >>>>>>>> to the concrete. > >>>>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting > questions > >>>>>>>> about how to understand the principle of > interaction as > >>>>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented > >>>>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will > answer > >>>>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed > >>>>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated > by me in > >>>>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago > ORIGIN OF > >>>>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian > >>>>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? > >>>>>>>> ???????????? >>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% > 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% > >>>>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . > >>>>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the > >>>>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is > >>>>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in > published in > >>>>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange > >>>>>>>> reason was not published then or later. > >>>>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your > questions, > >>>>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text > >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. > >>>>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would > like to > >>>>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the > interaction > >>>>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in > no case > >>>>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two > >>>>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false > approach > >>>>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism > has in my > >>>>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that > should > >>>>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is > obvious > >>>>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is > characteristic of the > >>>>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling > called the > >>>>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object > >>>>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are > not dealing > >>>>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with > the logic > >>>>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? > >>>>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the > >>>>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, > "positing" > >>>>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, > >>>>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the > chemism > >>>>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the > sense > >>>>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its > active and > >>>>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic > interaction, in > >>>>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is > active, > >>>>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, > objective. There > >>>>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, > but let us > >>>>>>>> return to this somehow later. > >>>>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my > graduation > >>>>>>>> work of 1988: > >>>>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) > relation > >>>>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction > of two > >>>>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the > sun taken > >>>>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is > >>>>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It > >>>>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively > due to > >>>>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) > >>>>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? > >>>>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the > plant > >>>>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). > >>>>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet > relation > >>>>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, > spontaneously > >>>>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital > >>>>>> activity. > >>>>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive > relation, > >>>>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not > >>>>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being > stimulated. > >>>>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism > does not > >>>>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with > >>>>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external > influence. > >>>>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it > is not > >>>>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) > can be > >>>>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the > organism > >>>>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external > thing > >>>>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into > >>>>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it > >>>>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of > >>>>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive > >>>>>> relation.? > >>>>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and > >>>>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the > >>>>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special > Mikhailovsky's > >>>>>>>> "addressing" to another person. > >>>>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered > >>>>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have > to try to > >>>>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human > consciousness > >>>>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has > been and > >>>>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology > >>>>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and > >>>>>> Ilyenkov. > >>>>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If > we want > >>>>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the > >>>>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract > to the > >>>>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers > >>>>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of > >>>>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct > method, to > >>>>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical > >>>>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to > choose one > >>>>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at > first > >>>>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a > >>>>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of > course > >>>>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic > >>>>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that > ".?the human > >>>>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single > >>>>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the > >>>>>>>> social relations.. " > >>>>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in > Vygotsky's > >>>>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a > purely > >>>>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to > >>>>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical > psychology > >>>>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from > Marx, then > >>>>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely > >>>>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us > with > >>>>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which > of them it > >>>>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first > place, > >>>>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have > to be > >>>>>>>> solved by ourselves. > >>>>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this > >>>>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A > >>>>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose > leader was > >>>>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov > undoubtedly > >>>>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object > oriented > >>>>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the > first, second > >>>>>>>> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", > whereas > >>>>>>>> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was > >>>>>>>> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In > other > >>>>>>>> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas > >>>>>>>> "Leningraders" were for "communication". > >>>>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our > >>>>>>>> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not > a literal > >>>>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, > but our > >>>>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, > such a > >>>>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the > >>>>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered > something > >>>>>>>> rather indecent. > >>>>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of > >>>>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also > >>>>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic > victory, > >>>>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by > organizing > >>>>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was > >>>>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was > >>>>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the > post of > >>>>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the > dean of > >>>>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a > >>>>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader > >>>>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful > people in > >>>>>>>> the ideological department of the Central > Committee of > >>>>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of > scientific > >>>>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful > discussions in > >>>>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the > >>>>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed > supporters > >>>>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. > Davydov's > >>>>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology > of RAE > >>>>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. > >>>>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to > >>>>>>>> "communication" and "activity." > >>>>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial > category, > >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, > then for us > >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We > will > >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which > one can > >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including > >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious > that > >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented > >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication > from the > >>>>>>>> object oriented activity, which is an attribute > property > >>>>>>>> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, > >>>>>>>> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting > plots, we > >>>>>>>> will never get life or object oriented activity > even with > >>>>>>>> the greatest diligence. > >>>>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, > but a fact > >>>>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive > >>>>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner > reflexivity and > >>>>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is > first > >>>>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic > level, > >>>>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex > dialectic > >>>>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in > the course > >>>>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is > traced. > >>>>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external > >>>>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, > >>>>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, > >>>>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a > >>>>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of > man. > >>>>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive > Activity" > >>>>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are > taken not > >>>>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of > >>>>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, > but as > >>>>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s > >>>>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. > >>>>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my > diploma > >>>>>>>> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist > >>>>>>>> theoretical solution to the question of the > relation of > >>>>>>>> objective activity and "communication". In the > same time, > >>>>>>>> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the > active > >>>>>>>> relation of the subject to the object and to > itself, is > >>>>>>>> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, > indeed, > >>>>>>>> any other, psychology. > >>>>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most > suitable > >>>>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, > >>>>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the > problem of the > >>>>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large > >>>>>>>> English text > >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS > >>>>>>>> and read it to the end :-). > >>>>>>>>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE > AND HUMAN > >>>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? > ???????????? > >>>>>>>> ???????????? >>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% > 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% > D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> > >>>>>>>>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to > short > >>>>>>>> English one > >>>>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ > >>>>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% > >>>>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% > >>>>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% > >>>>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% > >>>>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% > >>>>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% > BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. > >>>>>>>>> Sasha > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > > > > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 16 19:29:01 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 02:29:01 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Assistant Professor Position at James Madison University In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jobs galore it seems ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Krisztina Jakobsen Date: Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 6:05 PM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Assistant Professor Position at James Madison University To: *Assistant Professor ? Life-Span Human Development ? F1055 (SHORT AD)* The Department of Psychology at James Madison University is seeking a tenure-track Assistant Professor to begin August 2018 who can teach 300-student sections of Life-Span Human Development. Candidates will have broad expertise and skills necessary to produce engaging large-enrollment courses. The Lifespan Development course fulfills the sociocultural domain of our General Education Program, Cluster 5 (http://jmu.edu/gened/). Candidates are expected to develop an active program of scholarship. Occasional course instruction and supervision of graduate students enrolled in JMU?s M.A. in Psychological Sciences Program is possible. The Department welcomes applicants who can contribute to students? understanding of the diversity of development, and who can create an inclusive learning environment through teaching, research, and service. Faculty are expected to be productive in scholarship, serve as academic advisors to psychology majors, and contribute to service activities of the department/university. Faculty work to provide engaging learning experiences for students, including research opportunities, study abroad experiences, and service learning. For more information: http://psyc.jmu.edu . Qualifications: Doctoral degree in psychology; prior college teaching experience; strong interest in undergraduate instruction and knowledge of best practices in psychology pedagogy; documented history of scholarship. Experience with addressing diversity issues in teaching, advising, research, and/or service is preferred. To apply go to JobLink.jmu.edu and reference posting number F1055. *JMU is an equal opportunity employer and does not tolerate discrimination or harassment on the basis of age, color, disability, gender identity, genetic information, national origin, parental status, political affiliation, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation or veteran status.* -- ****************************************** Krisztina Varga Jakobsen, Ph.D. jakobskv@jmu.edu Associate Professor Department of Psychology, MSC 7704 91 E. Grace St. James Madison University Harrisonburg, VA 22807 540-568-4301 _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 16 19:30:04 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 02:30:04 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] faculty position in lifespan development at Georgia State University In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Another job ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: cconway@gsu.edu Date: Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:51 AM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] faculty position in lifespan development at Georgia State University To: Please distribute as desired: *Assistant Professor of Psychology. *Georgia State University anticipates hiring a tenure-track faculty member at the level of assistant professor, beginning August 2018, pending budgetary approval. The department is looking for creative and engaging scholars whose research focuses on any aspect of typical or atypical lifespan development (e.g., infancy, youth development, emerging adulthood, aging), with preference for candidates who can contribute to one or more department strengths in language and literacy, social interventions, cognitive neuroscience, and comparative cognition. Bolstered by a strong external funding record, high impact faculty publications, a diverse and large undergraduate major, and a nationally competitive doctoral program, the Department of Psychology ( http://psychology.gsu.edu) seeks to advance both basic knowledge and applied scholarship using innovative and diverse forms of inquiry to address the most challenging issues of the 21st century. Georgia State University is an enterprising public R1 university located in downtown Atlanta, a global metropolitan area and one of the largest and most racially/ethnically diverse cities in the Southeastern U.S. A national leader in using innovation to drive student success and research growth, and enrolling and graduating one of the most diverse student bodies in the nation, Georgia State provides its world-class faculty and more than 50,000 students unsurpassed research, teaching, and learning opportunities. Georgia State houses several interdisciplinary initiatives and centers in which psychology faculty are actively involved, including the Georgia State/Georgia Tech Center for Advanced Brain Imaging ( http://www.cabiatl.com/cabi), the Center for Research in Atypical Development and Learning (cradl.gsu.edu), the Regents Center for Learning Disorders (http://rcld.gsu.edu), the Gerontology Institute ( http://gerontology.gsu.edu), the Language Research Center ( http://lrc.gsu.edu) and University initiatives in Language & Literacy ( researchlanglit.gsu.edu), Brains & Behavior ( http://neuroscience.gsu.edu/brains-behavior), and the Partnership for Urban Health Research (http://urban.publichealth.gsu.edu). Qualified applicants must have a PhD in psychology or related discipline, be developing an independent research program with strong potential for external funding, and be committed to the teaching and mentoring of graduate and undergraduate students. Applicants should submit (1) a cover letter outlining qualifications for and interest in this position; (2) curriculum vitae; (3) a research statement describing their program of research/scholarship including future goals; (4) a teaching statement describing their general philosophy as well as commitment to teaching a diverse student body; (5) evidence of teaching effectiveness (i.e. course syllabi and teaching evaluations); (6) representative publications; and (7) three letters of recommendation. Submit application materials electronically to psysearch@gsu.edu. Review of applications will begin November 1, 2017 and will continue until the position is filled. *An offer of employment will be conditional on background verification. *Georgia State University is an Equal Opportunity Employer and does not discriminate against applicants due to race, ethnicity, gender, veteran status, or on the basis of disability or any other federal, state or local protected class. -- Christopher M. Conway, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Psychology P.O. Box 5010 Georgia State University Atlanta, GA 30302-5010 cconway@gsu.edu Phone: 404-413-6300 Fax: 404-413-6218 _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 16 19:28:29 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 02:28:29 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Open rank position in Communication Disorders, Emerson College In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rhiannon Luyster Date: Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 7:28 PM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Open rank position in Communication Disorders, Emerson College To: Hello, I would like to post this open rank position in Communication Disorders at Emerson College (Boston MA). Thank you! Rhiannon _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CD.SpeechPath.FA18.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 217382 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171017/2e232623/attachment.pdf From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Mon Oct 16 23:58:12 2017 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 06:58:12 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <733266766.294803.1508223492087@mail.yahoo.com> Alfredo , Andy , all, I'd like to give my take on this one but as it seems I'm many posts behind , I put it off to when I'm finished with the posts. Thanks for the prevailing discussions. Best Haydi From: Alfredo Jornet Gil To: "xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu" ; "ablunden@mira.net" Sent: Monday, 16 October 2017, 16:03:04 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Damn! Commodity exchange is the unit of burgeons society... I have to study more! Thanks Andy "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as ?an immense accumulation of commodities,?[1] its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity" Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: 16 October 2017 14:22 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Just to illustrate that I am being an orthodox Marxist here, from Chapter 10, Vol. 3 of Capital: ? ? "In the case of capitals of average, or approximately ? ? average, composition, the price of production is thus ? ? the same or almost the same as the value, and the profit ? ? the same as the surplus-value produced by them. All ? ? other capitals, of whatever composition, tend toward ? ? this average under pressure of competition. But since ? ? the capitals of average composition are of the same, or ? ? approximately the same, structure as the average social ? ? capital, all capitals have the tendency, regardless of ? ? the surplus-value produced by them, to realize the ? ? average profit, rather than their own surplus-value in ? ? the price of their commodity, i.e., to realize the ? ? prices of production." Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 16/10/2017 11:18 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > No, Alfredo. A unit of capital is a firm (or company). It is > impossible to explain the formation of a rate of profit (at > least as Marx does in /Capital/) without the conception of > units of capital, namely, firms and the competition between > them. Firms are of course, what Engestrom would call a > "system of activity" or I would call a "project" and > Leontyev almost could call an activity. But in the USSR > there were no firms, only the state. It is perhaps A N > Leonytev's greatest discovery? that there are both micro and > molar units in any complex process. True in Psychology and > true in political economy. Whereas exchange of commodities > is an artefact-mediated action, a firm is an activity, a > specific aggregate of actions, directed towards the > quantitative maximisation of the value of the unit of capital. > > English is not a perfect language either. : ) The word > "consciousness" has the unfortunate connotation of being a > mass noun (or continuous substance) whereas it is know only, > of course, in individual "consciousnesses" or "minds." But > it sounds so clumsy to say "a consciousness." > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 16/10/2017 11:07 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >> Haydi, >> >> I think Andy does not mean 'one capital' versus 'several capitals', for, if I read Andy adequately, Capital is for him not a unit but rather the whole of which commodity exchange is the unit. Thus, the germ cell of Capital is thus not Capital, or 'a' Capital, which you seem to attribute to Andy; just as I don't think he is arguing that there is consciousness, and then many consciousnesses. So it may be that you two agree more than disagree, judging by your last paragraph. >> >> Whether his position on singular and plurals is more or less adequate than another positions, that I leave it up to the discussion. >> >> Alfredo >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? >> Sent: 16 October 2017 09:45 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Andy Blunden >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >> >> Thank you David for your explanation! Though for me it needs more than one read. >> >> The point was whether use of activity and activities in Leontiev is a contradiction. Whoever L was and whatever he believed in , he was not so negligent to the point of posing activity first and immediately after that recounting 'activities'. Translation ruled out a committed error. Then such a blundering display must have a justification rather than a misunderstanding in comprehension. >> >> In one sense all things are related. The more so with the Monistic View. We have so many corporate and incorporate things , two of them so problematic communication and practical activity since Descartes and we are determined to avoid Dualism and refer and return all phenomena to that same thing , the one substance. In the actuality of the world , there's nothing discrete , that is , absolutely unrelated. Is that pretext for us not to see this unbounded versatility and hues and dues as distinct coloring? Maybe one of the ways was for man to let Nature go unrestrained?? But man also did not come of its own will. >> >> The sole way destined or open to Man was of its Nature to engage with the surrounding. To deal with it sensually and subjectively/agently. Then Man in one time interpreted all phenomena as they appeared to him. But he grew up further than his infantile period. He learnt to delve into matters , go deeper and deeper. With one spectacle (plane) he observed how that single substance let its attributes multiply themselves into different shapes and colors and Modes. With another plane of the one spectacle observed the variation of the Modes themselves. I mean Ontology and Epistemology not yet separate from each other as I used a pair of planes for that matter. >> >> Then we usually don't use a nail-clipper for alterations and manipulations in Genes. Or devices for Genes for our feeding and nutrition. It is then within these constraints that corporate and incorporate phenomena differ. Singles and plurals differ. Discrete and the indivisible differ. Parts and Moments differ. Wholes and mere entities differ. A process and a product resulting from that process differ. No justification to interchange them because of the use of A in front of them. >> >> I wonder if this is true for others too. For me it's difficult to accept to say "this capital that capital" "those 8 capitals united" "capitals of the world dissolved into unanimity". If I'm correct in this , it's , I think , because Capital is a Whole , coming out of a long process of functions and disfunctions , moments of circulations and transient stagnation , booms and boosts and drawbacks and failures. The moment of its conception in the exchange of commodities up to the discovery of the private appropriation of the surplus value to the point of harnessing every means to penetrate each tight corner of the big World. >> >> Best >> Haydi >> >> >>? ? ? From: David Kellogg >>? To: Andy Blunden ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >>? Sent: Monday, 16 October 2017, 2:21:12 >>? Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >> >> Of course, neither an object nor a process is discrete (or even, as Andy >> says, "discreet"). Who can tell me where a mountain river ends and the >> alluvial plain begins? Certainly not Cezanne or the phenomenologists who so >> loved him. Yet a mountain is most assuredly an object, just as surely >> as climbing the mountain to ascertain its degree of montagnitude is a >> process. >> >> This last week I've been struggling through the "Curriculum Reforms" >> wrought by three right wing governments in Norway, Finland, and New >> Zealand. Like Catalonia, these are all countries where unpopular coalitions >> of right parties are replacing a much more popular but obviously >> unsuccessful social democratic coalition of left parties. In Norway and in >> Finland, the coalition actually includes the far right, neo-fascist, >> anti-immigrant parties, and in New Zealand it includes the ACT, that is, an >> "association of consumers and taxpayers" whose main interest is cutting >> education budgets, starting by making teachers and students fight each >> other for scarce resources in the form of "block grants". >> >> Now, all of these governments are more or less bound by something called >> DeSeCo, which is short for Describe and Select Competences. This is because >> right-wing ideology sees education not as a public good but as a commodity, >> to be judged by tangible results and priced accordingly. This presents a >> real theoretical problem for right-wingers, because they ALSO see that >> "flexible labor markets" and "entrepreneurial spirit" means that there >> isn't any way of deciding on what skills or even what knowledge the >> "economy of the future" will demand. >> >> We can see this in the emphasis on "competence". Competence is not a thing >> or a process, and it is neither discrete nor discreet. Of course, if you >> are a linguist, competence is something Chomsky thought of in the sixties, >> an abstract form of knowledge in a hypothetical native speaker-hearer in an >> imaginary homogenous speech community. It is "discrete" in the sense of >> being nowhere and nowhen connectible to performance in any way. It is >> therefore "discreet" in the sense of being untestable--as soon as you test >> it, you have a form of performance, not competence. It's like standing in >> front of a classroom with a picture of a guy swimming and trying to teach >> the expression "i can swim". What you have in the picture is not "I can >> swim"; it's manifestly "he is swimming". >> >> But in DeSeCo, you get these lists of competences, which are set up as if >> they were discrete so you can list them on a Powerpoint slide and sell them >> to ministries of education. And the real selling point is that, on the one >> hand, because they are all "meta-skills" and "meta-knowledges", they don't >> have any practical outcome or real commitment to a job and a livelihood. >> And on the other, they sound terribly powerful when you phrase them as >> "learning to learn" or "transversal competence" or "meta-cognitive skills" >> or something like that. Jobs, in other words, are discretionary. After >> centuries of promising jobs and livelhood in return for school and boredom, >> the Western economies have decided that sticks are cheaper than carrots, >> and the thing to do is simply to rule people who don't have educational >> certificates out of the job market rather than try to provide >> actual know-how and factual know-that. >> >> Here are my four favorites (i.e. the four that we stress in our own >> curricular reform here in South Korea): >> >> interpersonal competence (sociability, the ability to 'be alone with >> others' as Hughlings Jackson put it) >> cultural competence (enculturation, the ability to understand traditions, >> mores, and norms) >> creative competence (intelligence, innovation, yadda yadda) >> individual competence (the ability to dress yourself, feed yourself, and >> show up for an interview where you will not be offered a job) >> >> Vygotsky, as usual, has a better idea--it's a mountain. We just turn the >> DeSeCO PPT upside down. Then we add each competence---freedom, creative >> intelligence, encultured habits and tastes, and instiinctive >> sociability--as a superstructure? erected on the basis of the previous one: >> >> free will (the ability to make choices that are not necessarily intelligent >> or habitual or instinctive) >> intelligence (the ability to make choices that are not habitual or >> instinctive but nevertheless adaptive) >> enculturation (the ability to make choices that are not instinctive but >> conform to the choices that have proven successful in the now socialized >> environment) >> instinct (the ability to make choices that are? responsive to the >> environment and which conform to the choices that have proven successful in >> phylogenesis) >> >> Are theses objects? Of course, if we say so. And processes? Well, how else >> could they have come about? What they are not, however, is either >> "discrete" or "discreet": they are clearly linked to each other, and they >> are all linked, through the lower layer, to adaptations ot the environment. >> >> And there's the rub--where the rubber meets the road. The real question, >> for our teachers and for our children, is about what will happen to them >> now that these competences can no longer be redeemed in jobs. Will the >> anti-Faustian bargain of exchanging your youth for a >> stable middle-aged livelihood survive? >> >> David Kellogg >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >> >>> Haydi, you say "AN activity is not a thing ; it's a >>> process." I wonder then what is a thing which is not also a >>> process? (I interpret "thing" as meaning "something >>> discrete," otherwise your objection makes no sense.) The >>> point is that Hegel does not make this dichotomy - every >>> thing is also a process and vice versa. That a process is >>> also discreet is important because it is only thanks to its >>> discreteness that we can cognise the process and in fact >>> only thanks to its discreteness that a process can affect >>> anything else. To speak of processes which are not also >>> discrete is to speak in abstractions. >>> >>> On this point, when Hegel puts ideas above matter, it has to >>> be realised that for Hegel "ideas" are social practices - he >>> is simply place human practice at the centre of human life >>> and its comprehension, rather than the mechanical and >>> chemical processes of Nature. If you think that "ideas" are >>> simply chimera inside our heads, then, of course, Hegel's >>> idealism seems like madness. >>> >>> Yes, all the Marxists have blasted Hegel. As they must. >>> Otherwise they must end up advocates of Constitutional >>> Monarchy. But while Marx uses almost every mention he makes >>> of Hegel to criticise him, often in extreme terms, it can go >>> unnoticed the extent to which in practice Marx follows Hegel >>> in philosophy. Of course Marx is not equal to Hegel, but >>> simple formulae do not contribute to understanding the relation. >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 15/10/2017 6:51 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: >>>> Andy, >>>> >>>> Let me first apologize to David Kellog because in others' >>>> wandering and perplexity it was he who in his reading of >>>> Gramsci's prison letters came across this point and made >>>> you not only accept the inappropriateness of Hegel's >>>> headstand as Crowning every worldly affair deriving from >>>> the People's Heads "Idea" , "Absolute" but also >>>> intensifying this point with more examples and references >>>> from Engels' "utopian versus genuine socialism" on your >>>> part. Of course you've been helping us on many occasions >>>> and? you're very welcome for this nothing to be denied. >>>> >>>> At this point we have no problem with translation. >>>> Leontiev meant it. >>>> >>>> Suppose that ANL does not know "individual" which is very >>>> ambiguous because in what then one should seek the >>>> embodiment of the "particular" and if one takes the very >>>> particular as individual , then everything gets mixed up . >>>> Then what about you who stick firmly on individual >>>> discrete detached activities as an objection to Sasha's >>>> sole ACTIVITY as theoretical understanding. >>>> >>>> As you well know even AN activity is not a thing ; it's a >>>> process. And you once distinguished between GENERAL WORK >>>> ACTIVITY and LABOUR ACTIVITY or VALORIZATION ACTIVITY >>>> which was quite right and timely though you recently gave >>>> differing definitions in no way harmonious to your >>>> previous definitions. But the main problem is blending >>>> clarity in expression with concrete in theory. No doubt >>>> you're a Fan of Hegel. I should repeat myself : Hegel is a >>>> hero of theoretical concepts. In theorizing , and for him >>>> to explicate the Essence of Phenomena , he begins with >>>> apparently concrete things as ABSTRACTS finally reaches >>>> CONCRETE UNIVERSALS as concepts. And here we again very >>>> surprisingly see you put your finger upon what you should >>>> have known in person is contrary to your own erudition. >>>> Turning Hegel down as believing in discrete abstracts. >>>> >>>> And now to his son's comment : What individual are you >>>> pursuing? Your Hegel sees phenomena in their relations. >>>> According to him and also according to ANL ACTIVITY as a >>>> unit of Life is Molar non-additive. He even does not see >>>> operations as single acts. It's a matter of the angle of >>>> vision not detachment and concreteness. If his son had >>>> talked of concreteness in moments of activity , then you >>>> were right in your objections and oppositions. You please >>>> give us your last definition of activity here (not in >>>> lengthy references) so that we can have a discerning >>>> option. >>>> So far to remove the problem we should accept operations >>>> are separately and independently carried out ; actions in >>>> their own are carried out ; activities are carried out >>>> arbitrarily. And these are done to the realization of man >>>> as the ensemble of social relations based on some >>>> infrastructure. >>>> >>>> Hegel's metaphor has been thrown back at him by Marx , >>>> Engels , Lenin , Vygotsky , Ilyenko , and many others. If >>>> you like to stand above all Giants of Marxism , it's >>>> something perfectly and absolutely Personal as you're >>>> speaking out loud! Then why give us so many references. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Haydi >>>> >>>> P.S. Alfredo! Though you have my previous private response >>>> concerning the matters you pose I see myself accountable >>>> to rewrite them to the Public. Thanks! >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> *From:* Andy Blunden >>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> *Sent:* Sunday, 15 October 2017, 5:35:40 >>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity >>>> and communication >>>> >>>> Haydi, partly the problem with ANL's >>>> philosophy-as-we-know-it is simply a product of its >>>> translation into English. But partly it is also in his >>>> philosophy. As Victor Kaptelinin first pointed out (so far >>>> as I know), ANL knows the universal and the particular but >>>> he does not know the individual. And his son's comment that >>>> ANL did not conceive of Activity as being discrete proves >>>> this to be the case. Thus his concept of Activity is not a >>>> fully concrete concept. And this is not a product of >>>> translation. >>>> >>>> As David Kellogg has kindly pointed out to me, it was Hegel >>>> who actually first introduced this metaphor of people >>>> "walking (or standing) on their heads." Personally, I don't >>>> think it has ever helped anyone understand the defect of >>>> Hegel's philosophy to throw this metaphor back at him. As >>>> demonstrated in this issue (the concept of activity) it was >>>> Hegel who understood that a concept must have all three >>>> moments - universal, particular and individual. >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> On 15/10/2017 9:24 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: >>>>> Dear Mike, >>>>> Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an >>>> activist for his concreteness and clarifications is >>>> crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot >>>> ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes , Parts , >>>> and Moments. He personally provided us with examples from >>>> Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they convert >>>> Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced with the >>>> same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most >>>> valuable contribution) does not begin with the individual >>>> case in isolation which phenomenologically? speaking (in >>>> contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for >>>> appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not obtained >>>> because one instance is considered detached from all >>>> relations and its subservience to the service of the >>>> Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is particular in >>>> some feature/s. And these particulars are essential. With >>>> other particulars in other individuals they are related >>>> actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense , this whole >>>> could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life itself. >>>> Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is , >>>> with category and concept only therefore , following Marx >>>> and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again on his >>>> feet (not that the firmament to that time did put "idea" >>>> on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on their >>>> heads but to put them again headstand thinking and acting >>>> with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just >>>> with their brains. Then taking all options in translation >>>> even that of a Machine into consideration it does not seem >>>> to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of >>>> Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of >>>> activities thereafter. These activities are those arising >>>> from the properties of versatile objects in turn arising >>>> from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile >>>> needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think >>>> Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual >>>> activities as moments with the broadest idea of the >>>> Monistic Substantial Modes or States in Philosophical >>>> terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn integrate and >>>> are dissolved into Monism of Substance. >>>>> Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche >>>> (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one >>>> Substance) is already there with the organism actively and >>>> spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own , >>>> positioning its due object and moving along its contours >>>> and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to itself >>>> , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and >>>> bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as >>>> novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with >>>> Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with a huge >>>> gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of >>>> consciousness , now apparently ascending to "wording" and >>>> "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration) further >>>> "communication" as something indispensable and necessary >>>> and inevitable to the realization of life affairs. >>>>> Best >>>>> Haydi >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>? ? ? From: mike cole >>> > >>>>>? To: Andy Blunden >>> >; "eXtended Mind, Culture, >>>> Activity" >>> > >>>>> Cc: Alexander Surmava >>> >; ivan-dgf >>>> >; Ivan >>>> Uemlianin >; >>>> Haydi Zulfei >>> > >>>>>? Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50 >>>>>? Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented >>>> activity and communication >>>>> Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.Could someone post >>>> the Russian text next to the English so that it is >>>> possible to compare it with the translation? I spent >>>> several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of >>>> Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally defeated >>>> me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra rubles in >>>> my pocket. >>>>> Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us >>>> a "true" translation. >>>>> mike >>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden >>>> > wrote: >>>>> The Progress Publishers English translation of "Activity and >>>>> Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of >>>>> Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: >>>>> >>>>>? ? Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, >>>>>? ? material life of the material subject. In the narrower >>>>>? ? sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a unit of >>>>>? ? life, mediated by mental reflection, by >>>>>? ? an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the >>>>>? ? subject in the objective world. >>>>> >>>>> In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The >>>>> Development of Mind" we have: >>>>> >>>>> Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an >>>>> organism?s activity; the different activities that realise >>>>> its diverse vital relations with the surrounding reality are >>>>> essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore >>>>> differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively >>>>> different] types of activity according to the difference in >>>>> their objects. >>>>> >>>>> By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses >>>>> "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has >>>>> been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for >>>>> English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean simply >>>>> "category." The second does the same, but in addition makes >>>>> it evident that the plural does not refer to different >>>>> activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the >>>>> possibility of forming a true concept of activity >>>> altogether. >>>>> With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is >>>>> simply that "such an initial *category* can only be >>>>> object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing >>>>> that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, >>>>> even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. >>>>> >>>>> Andy >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics. >>>> org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>> On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: >>>>>> Dear Andy! >>>>>> I am glad that our communication was resumed after many >>>>>> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and files >>>>>> and found that the problem of "object oriented activity OR >>>>>> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before >>>>>> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is serious and >>>>>> it deserves to return to it today. >>>>>> Last year I was close to being silent forever. >>>>>> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed >>>>>> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the >>>>>> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my >>>>>> theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my >>>>>> descendants :-). >>>>>> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not >>>>>> understand your question. What means the distinction >>>>>> between singular and plural number in your remark? Could >>>>>> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the >>>>>> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my >>>>>> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, >>>>>> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of >>>>>> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my dissertation >>>>>> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's "Theory of >>>>>> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, >>>>>> having understood the theoretic meaning of your claims to >>>>>> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily >>>>>> understand the essence of your objections to me. >>>>>> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I >>>>>> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a >>>>>> particular empirical case of its manifestation. Therefore, >>>>>> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just like >>>>>> Matter, Nature, or Substance. >>>>>> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come across >>>>>> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its >>>>>> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the >>>>>> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old >>>>>> philosophers and that only the numerous individual "atomic >>>>>> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really >>>>>> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar >>>>>> positivism and empiricism. >>>>>> However, all of this may not apply to your position ... >>>>>> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. >>>>>> Best wishes >>>>>> Sasha >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden >>>>>> > ?????(?): >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll ask Sasha a question. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial >>>>>> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it >>>> stands, >>>>>> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be >>>> that you >>>>>> are translating it from a Russian statement that is >>>> correct. >>>>>> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in when I >>>>>> say "every activity has an object."? But in your expression >>>>>> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and >>>> unless >>>>>> you are a religious person is not something which can >>>> have a >>>>>> specific object. All English translations of A N Leontyev >>>>>> make this mistake which has caused no end of confusion >>>> among >>>>>> English-speakers. >>>>>> >>>>>> Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," just as >>>>>> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." >>>>>> >>>>>> Andy >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics. >>>> org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>>>>>> Dear Sasha, all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding >>>>>> response. I think you are right in your assertion that we >>>>>> are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of >>>>>> CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. However, one >>>>>> can see in the lack of response by other members?? that >>>>>> not everyone has the privilege of the time it requires to >>>>>> go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing >>>>>> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce and I >>>>>> hope it is/will be appreciated as such. >>>>>>> If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I quote >>>>>> from your response: >>>>>>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" >>>>>>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework >>>>>> according to which we are looking of the most original >>>>>> germ cell, the one from which all others can be >>>>>> developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I >>>>>> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree on >>>> that. >>>>>>> But ??once we are back to the development of a concrete >>>>>> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact that, for >>>>>> any child to participate in human forms of object-oriented >>>>>> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented >>>>>> activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular >>>>>> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into those >>>>>> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category >>>>>> devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with >>>>>> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you describe, is >>>>>> this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, or is >>>>>> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? >>>>>>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others answer >>>>>> (which I hope some do). >>>>>>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in >>>>>> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of teaching >>>>>> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this >>>>>> is only possible through *involvement* in collective >>>>>> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary >>>>>> over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is >>>>>> only possible in and through object-oriented activity). >>>>>> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional aspect of >>>>>> the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to >>>>>> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this >>>>>> object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all >>>>>> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually >>>>>> uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such >>>>>> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get >>>>>> collective activity without them? On this, and precisely >>>>>> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of Man", >>>>>> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in that >>>>>> case that communication is included in activity and is its >>>>>> essential component: without relation to another >>>>>> person(s), activity is impossible'? (144). Although I not >>>>>> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I can't >>>>>> see how he can be wrong. >>>>>>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of >>>>>> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the >>>>>> category of object-oriented activity, is most primary. Let >>>>>> me also note that ?there are other authors who have >>>>>> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you >>>>>> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on >>>>>> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom >>>>>> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of auto-affection' ( >>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/ Incarnation-Philosophy- >>>> Studies-Phenomenology- Existential/dp/0810131269 >>>>>> ) >>>>>>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I wonder >>>>>> whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity >>>>>> and communication. Is not the distinction just an artefact >>>>>> of a partial understanding of what it means activity and >>>>>> what it means communicating. I still feel that >>>>>> communication, in the sense of addressivity that Mikhailov >>>>>> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for >>>>>> semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity >>>>>> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't >>>>>> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps >>>>>> naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication >>>>>> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in >>>>>> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I >>>>>> don't see how any practical activity can have any sense >>>>>> (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. >>>>>> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are >>>>>> talking about; one machines could perform on their own >>>>>> without consciousness. ? >>>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ______________________________ __ >>>>>>> From: Alexander Surmava >>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 >>>>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> >>>>>> >>> edu>; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo >>>>>> Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole >>>>>>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >>>>>> aside) :-) >>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>>>>> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >>>>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical >>>>>> verbiage>>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ >>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> >>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>>>>> Agitprop >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? sticks >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? in my teeth too, >>>>>>> and I?d rather >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? compose >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? romances for you - >>>>>>> more profit in it >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? and more charm. >>>>>>> But I >>>>>>>? ? ? ? subdued >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? myself, >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? setting my heel >>>>>>> on the throat >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of my own song. >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Vladimir Mayakovski >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? ??? >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????? ?????, >>>>>>> ? ??? ?? >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>>>>> ???????? ??? >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????. >>>>>>> ?? ? >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ???? >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????, >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????????? >>>>>>> ?? ????? >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????? ?????. >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? ?????????? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >>>>>> to the concrete. >>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >>>>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>> ????????????>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% >>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . >>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange >>>>>> reason was not published then or later. >>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. >>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >>>>>> return to this somehow later. >>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>>>>> work of 1988: >>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >>>> activity. >>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >>>> relation.? >>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>>>>> "addressing" to another person. >>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >>>> Ilyenkov. >>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>>>>> social relations.. " >>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>>>>> solved by ourselves. >>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was AN >>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >>>>>> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of >>>>>> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was inclined to >>>>>> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, >>>>>> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" >>>>>> were for communication. >>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>>>>> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal >>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >>>>>> rather indecent. >>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>>>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed? supporters >>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>>>>> "communication" and "activity." >>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. >>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my >>>>>> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a >>>>>> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the >>>>>> relation of objective activity and "communication". In the >>>>>> same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, >>>>>> the active relation of the subject to the object and to >>>>>> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, >>>>>> indeed, any other, psychology. >>>>>>> ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????, >>>>>> ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, >>>>>> ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, >>>>>> ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? >>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>> ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. >>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>>>>> English text >>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>> and read it to the end :-). >>>>>>> ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>> ????????????>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> >>>>>>> ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? >>>>>> ??????????? ???????? >>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ >>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% >>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% >>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% >>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% >>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% >>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 >>>>>> . >>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >>>>>> aside) :-) >>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>>>>> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >>>>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical >>>>>> verbiage>>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ >>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> >>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>>>>> Agitprop >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? sticks >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? in my teeth too, >>>>>>> and I?d rather >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? compose >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? romances for you - >>>>>>> more profit in it >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? and more charm. >>>>>>> But I >>>>>>>? ? ? ? subdued >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? myself, >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? setting my heel >>>>>>> on the throat >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of my own song. >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Vladimir Mayakovski >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? ??? >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????? ?????, >>>>>>> ? ??? ?? >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>>>>> ???????? ??? >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????. >>>>>>> ?? ? >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ???? >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????, >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????????? >>>>>>> ?? ????? >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????? ?????. >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? ?????????? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >>>>>> to the concrete. >>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >>>>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>> ????????????>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% >>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . >>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange >>>>>> reason was not published then or later. >>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. >>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >>>>>> return to this somehow later. >>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>>>>> work of 1988: >>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >>>> activity. >>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >>>> relation.? >>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>>>>> "addressing" to another person. >>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >>>> Ilyenkov. >>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>>>>> social relations.. " >>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>>>>> solved by ourselves. >>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was >>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >>>>>> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas >>>>>> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was >>>>>> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other >>>>>> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas >>>>>> "Leningraders" were for "communication". >>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>>>>> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a literal >>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >>>>>> rather indecent. >>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>>>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed? supporters >>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>>>>> "communication" and "activity." >>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>> object oriented activity, which is an attribute property >>>>>> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, >>>>>> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we >>>>>> will never get life or object oriented activity even with >>>>>> the greatest diligence. >>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my diploma >>>>>> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist >>>>>> theoretical solution to the question of the relation of >>>>>> objective activity and "communication". In the same time, >>>>>> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active >>>>>> relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is >>>>>> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, >>>>>> any other, psychology. >>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>>>>> English text >>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>> and read it to the end :-). >>>>>>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>> ????????????>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> >>>>>>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short >>>>>> English one >>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ >>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% >>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% >>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% >>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% >>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% >>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. >>>>>>> Sasha >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > > From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Tue Oct 17 08:00:25 2017 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 15:00:25 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <1508190552093.73064@iped.uio.no> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> Message-ID: <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> Dear all,?From where Istopped :? --My focuswas on rejection of the existence of a contradiction between ANL?s use ofsingular/plural activity/activities and arguing that CAPITAL is not to be tornup into pieces/parts. Talking of moments and wholes does not necessarily meaninvolving units of analysis.??-- No,Alfredo. A unit of capital is a firm (or company). ? Am Iconfused? Or can I justify myself in attributing a rush for a rapid answerwhich might be incorrect? A whole investment in what is to be proved otherwisejust on the next post? I mean Alfredo?s ?a commodity as the unit of analysis ofthe Capital". This time we should take a firm with specific connotationinovatively coined as ?a commodity?. ?Is not thisto justify our previous notes? In such cases we say ?A hen has just one leg?.At one time , Modern State is based on the Whole idea in contrast to oldMedieval State. At another time , Aggregates are supreme. Has anybody seenLeontiev taking Firms Proper as Activities proper? ? In the USSR, there were NOT firms , only the State. Andy does not say here if his State iswhole or aggregate. But just one can guess he takes it as a Whole. For ourdiscussion no problem if he takes it as an aggregate taking into account that awhole needs moments an aggregate parts. But what is he referring to when hesays Leontiev takes micro and Molar in one complex? Inferencially he might havetaken a firm as micro in contrast to Molar the more so that he has already issueda firm as an activity But But dear Andy if I?m not so confused even mad , yousaid in the USSR there were no firms no individual activities for that matter ??What micros then are you referring to that Leontiev too has drawn it into hisdiscussion? Would it not be better for you to argue that poor L was intotal loss of finding the other leg of our Hen? ??? --Andy?Ifyou are so kind to take this as a moderate critique , I then dare repeat if youare an orthodox Marxist (also my mentor on that) why you in a brief span oftime let yourself jump up from a thousand times ?I?m an activity theorist? to apoint of suppressing it as sort of a null/void? ?Now that the science ofLinguistics has progressed so far , talk of activity has gone into waste oftime?. ?not the proper quote but at least near to it. This was just short of a multitude. I wonder ifthis one suffices you to be an orthodox Marxist for your addressee to be acounter one . Incidentally I wanted to tell you there are much evidence thatyou are a Marxist why then you bring up those words against Marx? Many yearsback I asked you : Are you then Hegelian? You said , No! I mean at the timealso there was overtone and exaggeration on Hegel. ? --Damn! Commodity exchange is the unitof burgeons society... I have to study more! Thanks Andy?"The wealth of those societiesin which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as ?animmense accumulation of commodities,?[1] *its unit being a single commodity*.Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity"??This musthave been taken from Marx. And please Alfredo , give us the footnote for [1]??Is not this?immense accumulation of commodities? the very Capital? If positive , then theunit not a ?firm? but a commodity. Because acommodity (not any goods or product for subsistence or barter) as to the natureof its definition has the antinomy within itself and again to its very natureis forced to be exchanged and if my memory helps , Marx even after entering thediscussion of the exchange phenomenon , returns the discussion back to theexistence of potentially both relative and equivalent to one single commodity. ? ?--Yes , yes. What yes :-) ? There's the 'Unit of analysis is a commodity'. ? to its roots , to itssource , *to its unit* ?? ?but capital ? with capital??? just topreserve this for later discussions : ...in speech arising in collaborativeactivity.? Your point in the first paragraph iswhat I was trying to convey to Haidy, to see if there is room there for commonground between your positions. ??? --Yes , andthis was my answer : First my point in the last paragraph was not which one isthe unit of analysis. But that why is it we cannot use such sentences orphrases altogether. For that matter, I concluded that wholes as to their natureare not susceptible to get torn up. They are contiguous phenomena.?And I should add that I really do not find myself in aposition to receive such kind favours. Thank you! The problem is either I have not readenough to understand which I accept generally or that authorities see themselvestoo legitimate to think of their occasional drawbacks and then not to see thedwarfs smaller than they deserve to be.?? ??Capitals are units of capital. The onlywhole is the worldmarket, within which units ofcapital grow and shrink,consume one another and so on. Acapital (i.e. a firm) isnot a "whole" in the truesense of the word, and I wouldhave an issue with anyone who wantsto treat a firm as a"system of activity" ifthere were any implication that thismeans a "closed system."??--I justwant to ask Alfredo if he quoted Marx and if as he or any other folk understood it , the unit of analysis is a commodity. Presently no judgment. ? --Sashaarrives! He confirms the unit of analysis to be a substantial commodity. ?We shouldhave more of him. Let?s wait.?? I read Marx saying the same when writing this in the German Ideology:? "The?production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is atfirst directly interwoven with the material activity and the materialintercourse of men-the language of real life."? ?And then again,?? "Language is as old as consciousness, language is?practical, realconsciousness that exists for other men as well, and?only therefore doesit also exist for me; language, like consciousness,?only arises from theneed, the necessity, of intercourse with other?men."? I do not see here some hierarchy of primaries and secondaries, but ratherimmanence, humanity as a productive force that has practical and communicativeaspects. But I am happy to be in the?process of being correctedabout?this.?? --I wouldn?t think Sasha consciously mixes up exchanges of goods withexchanges of commodities Alfredo. And as you note , it depends on what socialrelation of what socio-economic formation we base our argument . ?? ?an orderliness that is self-generating and irreducible toany of the communicating 'parties' ?irrespective of whether these parties areengaged in any human material productive activity or not or if theircommunication could have any relationship to that process generally if notlocally or temporally--or their messages.? Don?t you think it sounds a bit dualistic? I add something to your sentence pleasesee if you again could confirm it.? I remember the travel by plane all intermittent talk , etc.Those talks were all mixed up with actions processes affecting each other asAndy says. One could think of partial independence of consciousness but not ultimatesegregation and separation. This was reserved for this moment : Andy : ? just to preserve this for laterdiscussions : ...in speech arising in collaborative activity. But you alsoremarked : activity constituted in communication. I talked about it. And abouthistorical essential precedence. But now generally intertwined.? I read Marx saying the same when writing this in the German Ideology:?"The?production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is atfirst directly interwoven with the material activity and the materialintercourse of men-the language of real life."? Is the language ofreal life here equal to the very self-generating independent communication youmentioned? ?And then again,??"Language is as old as consciousness, language is?practical, realconsciousness that exists for other men as well, and?only therefore doesit also exist for me; language, like consciousness,?only arises from theneed, the necessity, of intercourse with other?men."?I do not see here some hierarchy of primaries and secondaries, but ratherimmanence, humanity as a productive force that has practical and communicativeaspects. But I am happy to be in the?process of being correctedabout?this.?? This is alsoa follow-up from the above. What about 'at first'? Humanity thinks and speaks butfurther than the Commune humans as relating to their relevant classes eithertoil or exploit or double-deal staggering between the two.? --To ourtime zone , I began in the morning and now is night. Andy?s last message needsa fresher mind. Now good night!?I hope this reaches you non-crumbled non-clattered. I won't be able to view it. Best?Haydi ?? From: Andy Blunden To: Alfredo Jornet Gil ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" ; Mike Cole ; ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? ; Ivan Uemlianin ; Martin John Packer ; Alexander Surmava Sent: Tuesday, 17 October 2017, 1:46:24 Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication The idea of producing for exchange being something essential outside of a world in which products are exchanged is to my mind something as curious as something being a hammer outside of a world in which there are nails. In preparing the conceptual foundation of? Capital, Marx wrote the Grundrisse and in the Introduction he makes clear that production, distribution, exchange and consumption form a unity, a whole, and have to be analysed as such: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc2 "Thus production, distribution, exchange and consumption form a regular syllogism; production is the generality, distribution and exchange the particularity, and consumption the singularity in which the whole is joined together." Andy Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 17/10/2017 8:49 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: #yiv6282488095 #yiv6282488095 -- P {margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;}#yiv6282488095 So, not commodity exchange, but commodity?production, Sasha. That is of course?in line with everything else?you can read in Marx, including the introductory paragraphs of the German Ideology, and sounds right. Although?I did?not think?that 'exchange of goods' was?synonymous with?'exchange of commodities,' It is a whole different thing, and what you are?saying is that these?are different because of the type of relations of production. Sounds right to me.? There are theories that take communication to be an exchange of words, or of signs, or of ideas?as you write, a 'negotiation of meanings' others say.?But there are alternatives to that too, some of which characterise the communicative relation as a productive force, an orderliness that is self-generating and irreducible to any of the communicating 'parties' or their messages. Led by W-M Roth, we have written about this. Taking that perspective, and this may be because I am 'only' a?student, and one much less qualified than?the one you speak about in your message, it becomes very difficult for me to have communication to be somehow secondary. As it's been suggested here.?I feel more comfortable thinking of 'productive activity' or object oriented activity, as manifesting both as practical activity and as?communicative activity; but not first the one and only later the other.? I read Marx saying the same when writing this in the German Ideology: "The?production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men-the language of real life." ?And then again,? "Language is as old as consciousness, language is?practical, real consciousness that exists for other men as well, and?only therefore does it also exist for me; language, like consciousness,?only arises from the need, the necessity, of intercourse with other?men." I do not see here some hierarchy of primaries and secondaries, but rather immanence, humanity as a productive force that has practical and communicative aspects. But I am happy to be in the?process of being corrected about?this.? Alfredo PS: The text by Ilyenkov that Sasha refers to is available at Marxists.org, here:? ??https://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/abstract/index.htm From: Alexander Surmava Sent: 16 October 2017 17:00 To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Alfredo Jornet Gil; Mike Cole; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Ivan Uemlianin; Martin John Packer Subject: ???: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication ? Dear colleagues, Excuse me for the delay in responding to your previous posts about Leontiev and Vygotsky. The problems that we are discussing are so serious that it takes a long time to think about them and formulate an answer. Especially in English :-). Therefore, the main answer I hope to put on the XMCA no earlier than tomorrow. But suddenly the discussion turned into an extremely interesting side. I mean analysis of the logic of "Das Kapital". It is discussed what can and should be properly considered the unit of analysis of both Capital and ?Das Kapital?, the world system of capitalism and its reflection in Marx? theoretic masterpiece. At least two hypotheses have been voiced. The first is that such a unit is a separate " business", a capitalist firm. And the second, that the unit of analysis is the exchange of goods. I think that I can hardly agree with both hypotheses. It seems to me that for Marx the first, most abstract stage of analysis is in no case the exchange of goods, but the commodity itself. And not an abstract commodity, but a commodity produced under capitalistic relations. Therefore, the unit of analysis is strictly speaking the very production of such a commodity. The exchange of goods occurs not only under capitalism, but also under slavery, and under feudalism. This is not an independent, not substantial concept. The exchange depends on the mode of production, and not vice versa. The same can be applied to "communication" in psychology, to the "exchange" of ideas, caresses or beatings. This communication does not occur due to certain immanent laws of interpersonal communication, but entirely depends on the collaborative object-oriented activity (predmetnoy deyatelnosty), collective labor of historically determined individuals. In turn, the nature of their collective work, depends not on the distribution of genes in their genomes, but on the distribution of the means of production, on the distribution of labor instruments. Let us emphasize, not on the distribution of verbal signs, not on ideology, but on the distribution of the most material weapons of human activity. With communist greetings :-) ,? Sasha P.S. By the way, I enthusiastically welcome the fact that our discussion has switched from discussing Vygotsky's "units" to discussing the most abstract category of "Das Kapital" of Marx, that is, from a pale copy, to the original. By the way, in the future it might be interesting to re-read the "Dialectics of the abstract and concrete in scientific and theoretical thinking" by EV Ilyenkov. This work contains an elaborate analysis of the method of Marx, in comparison with which Vygotsky's methodological reflexion seems to be something quite student-like. ??: Andy Blunden ????: Alfredo Jornet Gil ; "xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu" ??????????: ???????????, 16 ??????? 2017 15:51 ????: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Capitals are units of capital. The only whole is the world market, within which units of capital grow and shrink, consume one another and so on. A capital (i.e. a firm) is not a "whole" in the true sense of the word, and I would have an issue with anyone who wants to treat a firm as a "system of activity" if there were any implication that this means a "closed system." Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 16/10/2017 11:42 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > Your point in the first paragraph is what I was trying to > convey to Haidy, to see if there is room there for common > ground between your positions. ? > > Alfredo > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Andy Blunden > *Sent:* 16 October 2017 14:39 > *To:* Alfredo Jornet Gil; xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity and communication >? > > Yes, yes, Alfredo! But what is often overlooked is that > the aim of Marx's research is not commodity exchange (in > itself a harmless business) but capital. But he does not > *start* with capital, but goes down to its roots, its > source, in the circulation of commodities. > > Compare with Vygotsky's analysis of the intellect > (thinking). Word meanings are *not* the subject matter of > Vygotsky's research (who gives a damn!?), but concepts! > But he does not start with concepts, but goes down to its > roots, its source, in speech arising in collaborative > activity. Actually, AN Leontyev missed this, as can be > seen in his trenchant attack on Vygotsky in his ?Study of > the Environment in the Pedological Works of L. S. Vygotsky". > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 16/10/2017 11:31 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >> Damn! Commodity exchange is the unit of burgeons society... I have to study more! Thanks Andy >> >> "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as ?an immense accumulation of commodities,?[1] its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity" >> >> Alfredo >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden >> Sent: 16 October 2017 14:22 >> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >> >> Just to illustrate that I am being an orthodox Marxist here, >> from Chapter 10, Vol. 3 of Capital: >> >>? ? "In the case of capitals of average, or approximately >>? ? average, composition, the price of production is thus >>? ? the same or almost the same as the value, and the profit >>? ? the same as the surplus-value produced by them. All >>? ? other capitals, of whatever composition, tend toward >>? ? this average under pressure of competition. But since >>? ? the capitals of average composition are of the same, or >>? ? approximately the same, structure as the average social >>? ? capital, all capitals have the tendency, regardless of >>? ? the surplus-value produced by them, to realize the >>? ? average profit, rather than their own surplus-value in >>? ? the price of their commodity, i.e., to realize the >>? ? prices of production." >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 16/10/2017 11:18 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >>> No, Alfredo. A unit of capital is a firm (or company). It is >>> impossible to explain the formation of a rate of profit (at >>> least as Marx does in /Capital/) without the conception of >>> units of capital, namely, firms and the competition between >>> them. Firms are of course, what Engestrom would call a >>> "system of activity" or I would call a "project" and >>> Leontyev almost could call an activity. But in the USSR >>> there were no firms, only the state. It is perhaps A N >>> Leonytev's greatest discovery? that there are both micro and >>> molar units in any complex process. True in Psychology and >>> true in political economy. Whereas exchange of commodities >>> is an artefact-mediated action, a firm is an activity, a >>> specific aggregate of actions, directed towards the >>> quantitative maximisation of the value of the unit of capital. >>> >>> English is not a perfect language either. : ) The word >>> "consciousness" has the unfortunate connotation of being a >>> mass noun (or continuous substance) whereas it is know only, >>> of course, in individual "consciousnesses" or "minds." But >>> it sounds so clumsy to say "a consciousness." >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 16/10/2017 11:07 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>>> Haydi, >>>> >>>> I think Andy does not mean 'one capital' versus 'several capitals', for, if I read Andy adequately, Capital is for him not a unit but rather the whole of which commodity exchange is the unit. Thus, the germ cell of Capital is thus not Capital, or 'a' Capital, which you seem to attribute to Andy; just as I don't think he is arguing that there is consciousness, and then many consciousnesses. So it may be that you two agree more than disagree, judging by your last paragraph. >>>> >>>> Whether his position on singular and plurals is more or less adequate than another positions, that I leave it up to the discussion. >>>> >>>> Alfredo >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? >>>> Sent: 16 October 2017 09:45 >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Andy Blunden >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >>>> >>>> Thank you David for your explanation! Though for me it needs more than one read. >>>> >>>> The point was whether use of activity and activities in Leontiev is a contradiction. Whoever L was and whatever he believed in , he was not so negligent to the point of posing activity first and immediately after that recounting 'activities'. Translation ruled out a committed error. Then such a blundering display must have a justification rather than a misunderstanding in comprehension. >>>> >>>> In one sense all things are related. The more so with the Monistic View. We have so many corporate and incorporate things , two of them so problematic communication and practical activity since Descartes and we are determined to avoid Dualism and refer and return all phenomena to that same thing , the one substance. In the actuality of the world , there's nothing discrete , that is , absolutely unrelated. Is that pretext for us not to see this unbounded versatility and hues and dues as distinct coloring? Maybe one of the ways was for man to let Nature go unrestrained?? But man also did not come of its own will. >>>> >>>> The sole way destined or open to Man was of its Nature to engage with the surrounding. To deal with it sensually and subjectively/agently. Then Man in one time interpreted all phenomena as they appeared to him. But he grew up further than his infantile period. He learnt to delve into matters , go deeper and deeper. With one spectacle (plane) he observed how that single substance let its attributes multiply themselves into different shapes and colors and Modes. With another plane of the one spectacle observed the variation of the Modes themselves. I mean Ontology and Epistemology not yet separate from each other as I used a pair of planes for that matter. >>>> >>>> Then we usually don't use a nail-clipper for alterations and manipulations in Genes. Or devices for Genes for our feeding and nutrition. It is then within these constraints that corporate and incorporate phenomena differ. Singles and plurals differ. Discrete and the indivisible differ. Parts and Moments differ. Wholes and mere entities differ. A process and a product resulting from that process differ. No justification to interchange them because of the use of A in front of them. >>>> >>>> I wonder if this is true for others too. For me it's difficult to accept to say "this capital that capital" "those 8 capitals united" "capitals of the world dissolved into unanimity". If I'm correct in this , it's , I think , because Capital is a Whole , coming out of a long process of functions and disfunctions , moments of circulations and transient stagnation , booms and boosts and drawbacks and failures. The moment of its conception in the exchange of commodities up to the discovery of the private appropriation of the surplus value to the point of harnessing every means to penetrate each tight corner of the big World. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Haydi >>>> >>>> >>>>? ? ? From: David Kellogg >>>>? To: Andy Blunden ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >>>>? Sent: Monday, 16 October 2017, 2:21:12 >>>>? Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >>>> >>>> Of course, neither an object nor a process is discrete (or even, as Andy >>>> says, "discreet"). Who can tell me where a mountain river ends and the >>>> alluvial plain begins? Certainly not Cezanne or the phenomenologists who so >>>> loved him. Yet a mountain is most assuredly an object, just as surely >>>> as climbing the mountain to ascertain its degree of montagnitude is a >>>> process. >>>> >>>> This last week I've been struggling through the "Curriculum Reforms" >>>> wrought by three right wing governments in Norway, Finland, and New >>>> Zealand. Like Catalonia, these are all countries where unpopular coalitions >>>> of right parties are replacing a much more popular but obviously >>>> unsuccessful social democratic coalition of left parties. In Norway and in >>>> Finland, the coalition actually includes the far right, neo-fascist, >>>> anti-immigrant parties, and in New Zealand it includes the ACT, that is, an >>>> "association of consumers and taxpayers" whose main interest is cutting >>>> education budgets, starting by making teachers and students fight each >>>> other for scarce resources in the form of "block grants". >>>> >>>> Now, all of these governments are more or less bound by something called >>>> DeSeCo, which is short for Describe and Select Competences. This is because >>>> right-wing ideology sees education not as a public good but as a commodity, >>>> to be judged by tangible results and priced accordingly. This presents a >>>> real theoretical problem for right-wingers, because they ALSO see that >>>> "flexible labor markets" and "entrepreneurial spirit" means that there >>>> isn't any way of deciding on what skills or even what knowledge the >>>> "economy of the future" will demand. >>>> >>>> We can see this in the emphasis on "competence". Competence is not a thing >>>> or a process, and it is neither discrete nor discreet. Of course, if you >>>> are a linguist, competence is something Chomsky thought of in the sixties, >>>> an abstract form of knowledge in a hypothetical native speaker-hearer in an >>>> imaginary homogenous speech community. It is "discrete" in the sense of >>>> being nowhere and nowhen connectible to performance in any way. It is >>>> therefore "discreet" in the sense of being untestable--as soon as you test >>>> it, you have a form of performance, not competence. It's like standing in >>>> front of a classroom with a picture of a guy swimming and trying to teach >>>> the expression "i can swim". What you have in the picture is not "I can >>>> swim"; it's manifestly "he is swimming". >>>> >>>> But in DeSeCo, you get these lists of competences, which are set up as if >>>> they were discrete so you can list them on a Powerpoint slide and sell them >>>> to ministries of education. And the real selling point is that, on the one >>>> hand, because they are all "meta-skills" and "meta-knowledges", they don't >>>> have any practical outcome or real commitment to a job and a livelihood. >>>> And on the other, they sound terribly powerful when you phrase them as >>>> "learning to learn" or "transversal competence" or "meta-cognitive skills" >>>> or something like that. Jobs, in other words, are discretionary. After >>>> centuries of promising jobs and livelhood in return for school and boredom, >>>> the Western economies have decided that sticks are cheaper than carrots, >>>> and the thing to do is simply to rule people who don't have educational >>>> certificates out of the job market rather than try to provide >>>> actual know-how and factual know-that. >>>> >>>> Here are my four favorites (i.e. the four that we stress in our own >>>> curricular reform here in South Korea): >>>> >>>> interpersonal competence (sociability, the ability to 'be alone with >>>> others' as Hughlings Jackson put it) >>>> cultural competence (enculturation, the ability to understand traditions, >>>> mores, and norms) >>>> creative competence (intelligence, innovation, yadda yadda) >>>> individual competence (the ability to dress yourself, feed yourself, and >>>> show up for an interview where you will not be offered a job) >>>> >>>> Vygotsky, as usual, has a better idea--it's a mountain. We just turn the >>>> DeSeCO PPT upside down. Then we add each competence---freedom, creative >>>> intelligence, encultured habits and tastes, and instiinctive >>>> sociability--as a superstructure? erected on the basis of the previous one: >>>> >>>> free will (the ability to make choices that are not necessarily intelligent >>>> or habitual or instinctive) >>>> intelligence (the ability to make choices that are not habitual or >>>> instinctive but nevertheless adaptive) >>>> enculturation (the ability to make choices that are not instinctive but >>>> conform to the choices that have proven successful in the now socialized >>>> environment) >>>> instinct (the ability to make choices that are? responsive to the >>>> environment and which conform to the choices that have proven successful in >>>> phylogenesis) >>>> >>>> Are theses objects? Of course, if we say so. And processes? Well, how else >>>> could they have come about? What they are not, however, is either >>>> "discrete" or "discreet": they are clearly linked to each other, and they >>>> are all linked, through the lower layer, to adaptations ot the environment. >>>> >>>> And there's the rub--where the rubber meets the road. The real question, >>>> for our teachers and for our children, is about what will happen to them >>>> now that these competences can no longer be redeemed in jobs. Will the >>>> anti-Faustian bargain of exchanging your youth for a >>>> stable middle-aged livelihood survive? >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >>>> >>>>> Haydi, you say "AN activity is not a thing ; it's a >>>>> process." I wonder then what is a thing which is not also a >>>>> process? (I interpret "thing" as meaning "something >>>>> discrete," otherwise your objection makes no sense.) The >>>>> point is that Hegel does not make this dichotomy - every >>>>> thing is also a process and vice versa. That a process is >>>>> also discreet is important because it is only thanks to its >>>>> discreteness that we can cognise the process and in fact >>>>> only thanks to its discreteness that a process can affect >>>>> anything else. To speak of processes which are not also >>>>> discrete is to speak in abstractions. >>>>> >>>>> On this point, when Hegel puts ideas above matter, it has to >>>>> be realised that for Hegel "ideas" are social practices - he >>>>> is simply place human practice at the centre of human life >>>>> and its comprehension, rather than the mechanical and >>>>> chemical processes of Nature. If you think that "ideas" are >>>>> simply chimera inside our heads, then, of course, Hegel's >>>>> idealism seems like madness. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, all the Marxists have blasted Hegel. As they must. >>>>> Otherwise they must end up advocates of Constitutional >>>>> Monarchy. But while Marx uses almost every mention he makes >>>>> of Hegel to criticise him, often in extreme terms, it can go >>>>> unnoticed the extent to which in practice Marx follows Hegel >>>>> in philosophy. Of course Marx is not equal to Hegel, but >>>>> simple formulae do not contribute to understanding the relation. >>>>> >>>>> Andy >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>> On 15/10/2017 6:51 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: >>>>>> Andy, >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me first apologize to David Kellog because in others' >>>>>> wandering and perplexity it was he who in his reading of >>>>>> Gramsci's prison letters came across this point and made >>>>>> you not only accept the inappropriateness of Hegel's >>>>>> headstand as Crowning every worldly affair deriving from >>>>>> the People's Heads "Idea" , "Absolute" but also >>>>>> intensifying this point with more examples and references >>>>>> from Engels' "utopian versus genuine socialism" on your >>>>>> part. Of course you've been helping us on many occasions >>>>>> and? you're very welcome for this nothing to be denied. >>>>>> >>>>>> At this point we have no problem with translation. >>>>>> Leontiev meant it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Suppose that ANL does not know "individual" which is very >>>>>> ambiguous because in what then one should seek the >>>>>> embodiment of the "particular" and if one takes the very >>>>>> particular as individual , then everything gets mixed up . >>>>>> Then what about you who stick firmly on individual >>>>>> discrete detached activities as an objection to Sasha's >>>>>> sole ACTIVITY as theoretical understanding. >>>>>> >>>>>> As you well know even AN activity is not a thing ; it's a >>>>>> process. And you once distinguished between GENERAL WORK >>>>>> ACTIVITY and LABOUR ACTIVITY or VALORIZATION ACTIVITY >>>>>> which was quite right and timely though you recently gave >>>>>> differing definitions in no way harmonious to your >>>>>> previous definitions. But the main problem is blending >>>>>> clarity in expression with concrete in theory. No doubt >>>>>> you're a Fan of Hegel. I should repeat myself : Hegel is a >>>>>> hero of theoretical concepts. In theorizing , and for him >>>>>> to explicate the Essence of Phenomena , he begins with >>>>>> apparently concrete things as ABSTRACTS finally reaches >>>>>> CONCRETE UNIVERSALS as concepts. And here we again very >>>>>> surprisingly see you put your finger upon what you should >>>>>> have known in person is contrary to your own erudition. >>>>>> Turning Hegel down as believing in discrete abstracts. >>>>>> >>>>>> And now to his son's comment : What individual are you >>>>>> pursuing? Your Hegel sees phenomena in their relations. >>>>>> According to him and also according to ANL ACTIVITY as a >>>>>> unit of Life is Molar non-additive. He even does not see >>>>>> operations as single acts. It's a matter of the angle of >>>>>> vision not detachment and concreteness. If his son had >>>>>> talked of concreteness in moments of activity , then you >>>>>> were right in your objections and oppositions. You please >>>>>> give us your last definition of activity here (not in >>>>>> lengthy references) so that we can have a discerning >>>>>> option. >>>>>> So far to remove the problem we should accept operations >>>>>> are separately and independently carried out ; actions in >>>>>> their own are carried out ; activities are carried out >>>>>> arbitrarily. And these are done to the realization of man >>>>>> as the ensemble of social relations based on some >>>>>> infrastructure. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hegel's metaphor has been thrown back at him by Marx , >>>>>> Engels , Lenin , Vygotsky , Ilyenko , and many others. If >>>>>> you like to stand above all Giants of Marxism , it's >>>>>> something perfectly and absolutely Personal as you're >>>>>> speaking out loud! Then why give us so many references. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> >>>>>> Haydi >>>>>> >>>>>> P.S. Alfredo! Though you have my previous private response >>>>>> concerning the matters you pose I see myself accountable >>>>>> to rewrite them to the Public. Thanks! >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> *From:* Andy Blunden >>>>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, 15 October 2017, 5:35:40 >>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity >>>>>> and communication >>>>>> >>>>>> Haydi, partly the problem with ANL's >>>>>> philosophy-as-we-know-it is simply a product of its >>>>>> translation into English. But partly it is also in his >>>>>> philosophy. As Victor Kaptelinin first pointed out (so far >>>>>> as I know), ANL knows the universal and the particular but >>>>>> he does not know the individual. And his son's comment that >>>>>> ANL did not conceive of Activity as being discrete proves >>>>>> this to be the case. Thus his concept of Activity is not a >>>>>> fully concrete concept. And this is not a product of >>>>>> translation. >>>>>> >>>>>> As David Kellogg has kindly pointed out to me, it was Hegel >>>>>> who actually first introduced this metaphor of people >>>>>> "walking (or standing) on their heads." Personally, I don't >>>>>> think it has ever helped anyone understand the defect of >>>>>> Hegel's philosophy to throw this metaphor back at him. As >>>>>> demonstrated in this issue (the concept of activity) it was >>>>>> Hegel who understood that a concept must have all three >>>>>> moments - universal, particular and individual. >>>>>> >>>>>> Andy >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>> On 15/10/2017 9:24 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: >>>>>>> Dear Mike, >>>>>>> Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an >>>>>> activist for his concreteness and clarifications is >>>>>> crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot >>>>>> ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes , Parts , >>>>>> and Moments. He personally provided us with examples from >>>>>> Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they convert >>>>>> Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced with the >>>>>> same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most >>>>>> valuable contribution) does not begin with the individual >>>>>> case in isolation which phenomenologically? speaking (in >>>>>> contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for >>>>>> appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not obtained >>>>>> because one instance is considered detached from all >>>>>> relations and its subservience to the service of the >>>>>> Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is particular in >>>>>> some feature/s. And these particulars are essential. With >>>>>> other particulars in other individuals they are related >>>>>> actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense , this whole >>>>>> could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life itself. >>>>>> Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is , >>>>>> with category and concept only therefore , following Marx >>>>>> and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again on his >>>>>> feet (not that the firmament to that time did put "idea" >>>>>> on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on their >>>>>> heads but to put them again headstand thinking and acting >>>>>> with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just >>>>>> with their brains. Then taking all options in translation >>>>>> even that of a Machine into consideration it does not seem >>>>>> to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of >>>>>> Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of >>>>>> activities thereafter. These activities are those arising >>>>>> from the properties of versatile objects in turn arising >>>>>> from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile >>>>>> needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think >>>>>> Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual >>>>>> activities as moments with the broadest idea of the >>>>>> Monistic Substantial Modes or States in Philosophical >>>>>> terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn integrate and >>>>>> are dissolved into Monism of Substance. >>>>>>> Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche >>>>>> (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one >>>>>> Substance) is already there with the organism actively and >>>>>> spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own , >>>>>> positioning its due object and moving along its contours >>>>>> and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to itself >>>>>> , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and >>>>>> bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as >>>>>> novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with >>>>>> Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with a huge >>>>>> gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of >>>>>> consciousness , now apparently ascending to "wording" and >>>>>> "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration) further >>>>>> "communication" as something indispensable and necessary >>>>>> and inevitable to the realization of life affairs. >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> Haydi >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>? ? ? From: mike cole >>>>> > >>>>>>>? To: Andy Blunden >>>>> >; "eXtended Mind, Culture, >>>>>> Activity" >>>>> > >>>>>>> Cc: Alexander Surmava >>>>> >; ivan-dgf >>>>>> >; Ivan >>>>>> Uemlianin >; >>>>>> Haydi Zulfei >>>>> > >>>>>>>? Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50 >>>>>>>? Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented >>>>>> activity and communication >>>>>>> Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.Could someone post >>>>>> the Russian text next to the English so that it is >>>>>> possible to compare it with the translation? I spent >>>>>> several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of >>>>>> Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally defeated >>>>>> me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra rubles in >>>>>> my pocket. >>>>>>> Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us >>>>>> a "true" translation. >>>>>>> mike >>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> The Progress Publishers English translation of "Activity and >>>>>>> Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of >>>>>>> Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>? ? Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, >>>>>>>? ? material life of the material subject. In the narrower >>>>>>>? ? sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a unit of >>>>>>>? ? life, mediated by mental reflection, by >>>>>>>? ? an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the >>>>>>>? ? subject in the objective world. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The >>>>>>> Development of Mind" we have: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an >>>>>>> organism?s activity; the different activities that realise >>>>>>> its diverse vital relations with the surrounding reality are >>>>>>> essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore >>>>>>> differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively >>>>>>> different] types of activity according to the difference in >>>>>>> their objects. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses >>>>>>> "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has >>>>>>> been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for >>>>>>> English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean simply >>>>>>> "category." The second does the same, but in addition makes >>>>>>> it evident that the plural does not refer to different >>>>>>> activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the >>>>>>> possibility of forming a true concept of activity >>>>>> altogether. >>>>>>> With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is >>>>>>> simply that "such an initial *category* can only be >>>>>>> object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing >>>>>>> that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, >>>>>>> even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics. >>>>>> org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>> On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: >>>>>>>> Dear Andy! >>>>>>>> I am glad that our communication was resumed after many >>>>>>>> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and files >>>>>>>> and found that the problem of "object oriented activity OR >>>>>>>> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before >>>>>>>> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is serious and >>>>>>>> it deserves to return to it today. >>>>>>>> Last year I was close to being silent forever. >>>>>>>> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed >>>>>>>> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the >>>>>>>> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my >>>>>>>> theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my >>>>>>>> descendants :-). >>>>>>>> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not >>>>>>>> understand your question. What means the distinction >>>>>>>> between singular and plural number in your remark? Could >>>>>>>> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the >>>>>>>> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my >>>>>>>> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, >>>>>>>> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of >>>>>>>> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my dissertation >>>>>>>> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's "Theory of >>>>>>>> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, >>>>>>>> having understood the theoretic meaning of your claims to >>>>>>>> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily >>>>>>>> understand the essence of your objections to me. >>>>>>>> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I >>>>>>>> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a >>>>>>>> particular empirical case of its manifestation. Therefore, >>>>>>>> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just like >>>>>>>> Matter, Nature, or Substance. >>>>>>>> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come across >>>>>>>> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its >>>>>>>> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the >>>>>>>> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old >>>>>>>> philosophers and that only the numerous individual "atomic >>>>>>>> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really >>>>>>>> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar >>>>>>>> positivism and empiricism. >>>>>>>> However, all of this may not apply to your position ... >>>>>>>> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. >>>>>>>> Best wishes >>>>>>>> Sasha >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> > ?????(?): >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'll ask Sasha a question. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial >>>>>>>> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it >>>>>> stands, >>>>>>>> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be >>>>>> that you >>>>>>>> are translating it from a Russian statement that is >>>>>> correct. >>>>>>>> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in when I >>>>>>>> say "every activity has an object."? But in your expression >>>>>>>> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and >>>>>> unless >>>>>>>> you are a religious person is not something which can >>>>>> have a >>>>>>>> specific object. All English translations of A N Leontyev >>>>>>>> make this mistake which has caused no end of confusion >>>>>> among >>>>>>>> English-speakers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," just as >>>>>>>> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics. >>>>>> org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>>>>>>>> Dear Sasha, all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding >>>>>>>> response. I think you are right in your assertion that we >>>>>>>> are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of >>>>>>>> CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. However, one >>>>>>>> can see in the lack of response by other members?? that >>>>>>>> not everyone has the privilege of the time it requires to >>>>>>>> go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing >>>>>>>> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce and I >>>>>>>> hope it is/will be appreciated as such. >>>>>>>>> If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I quote >>>>>>>> from your response: >>>>>>>>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>>>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>>>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>>>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" >>>>>>>>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework >>>>>>>> according to which we are looking of the most original >>>>>>>> germ cell, the one from which all others can be >>>>>>>> developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I >>>>>>>> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree on >>>>>> that. >>>>>>>>> But ??once we are back to the development of a concrete >>>>>>>> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact that, for >>>>>>>> any child to participate in human forms of object-oriented >>>>>>>> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented >>>>>>>> activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular >>>>>>>> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into those >>>>>>>> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category >>>>>>>> devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with >>>>>>>> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you describe, is >>>>>>>> this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, or is >>>>>>>> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? >>>>>>>>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others answer >>>>>>>> (which I hope some do). >>>>>>>>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in >>>>>>>> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of teaching >>>>>>>> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this >>>>>>>> is only possible through *involvement* in collective >>>>>>>> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary >>>>>>>> over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is >>>>>>>> only possible in and through object-oriented activity). >>>>>>>> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional aspect of >>>>>>>> the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to >>>>>>>> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this >>>>>>>> object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all >>>>>>>> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually >>>>>>>> uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such >>>>>>>> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get >>>>>>>> collective activity without them? On this, and precisely >>>>>>>> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of Man", >>>>>>>> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in that >>>>>>>> case that communication is included in activity and is its >>>>>>>> essential component: without relation to another >>>>>>>> person(s), activity is impossible'? (144). Although I not >>>>>>>> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I can't >>>>>>>> see how he can be wrong. >>>>>>>>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of >>>>>>>> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the >>>>>>>> category of object-oriented activity, is most primary. Let >>>>>>>> me also note that ?there are other authors who have >>>>>>>> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you >>>>>>>> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on >>>>>>>> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom >>>>>>>> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of auto-affection' ( >>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/ Incarnation-Philosophy- >>>>>> Studies-Phenomenology- Existential/dp/0810131269 >>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I wonder >>>>>>>> whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity >>>>>>>> and communication. Is not the distinction just an artefact >>>>>>>> of a partial understanding of what it means activity and >>>>>>>> what it means communicating. I still feel that >>>>>>>> communication, in the sense of addressivity that Mikhailov >>>>>>>> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for >>>>>>>> semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity >>>>>>>> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't >>>>>>>> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps >>>>>>>> naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication >>>>>>>> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in >>>>>>>> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I >>>>>>>> don't see how any practical activity can have any sense >>>>>>>> (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. >>>>>>>> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are >>>>>>>> talking about; one machines could perform on their own >>>>>>>> without consciousness. ? >>>>>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ______________________________ __ >>>>>>>>> From: Alexander Surmava >>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 >>>>>>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> edu>; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo >>>>>>>> Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole >>>>>>>>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >>>>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>>>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >>>>>>>> aside) :-) >>>>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>>>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >>>>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >>>>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>>>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>>>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >>>>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>>>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >>>>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >>>>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >>>>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>>>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>>>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>>>>>>> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>>>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >>>>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >>>>>>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>>>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >>>>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>>>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>>>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>>>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >>>>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>>>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>>>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>>>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical >>>>>>>> verbiage>>>>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ >>>>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> >>>>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>>>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >>>>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >>>>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>>>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>>>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>>>>>>> Agitprop >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? sticks >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? in my teeth too, >>>>>>>>> and I?d rather >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? compose >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? romances for you - >>>>>>>>> more profit in it >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? and more charm. >>>>>>>>> But I >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? subdued >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? myself, >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? setting my heel >>>>>>>>> on the throat >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of my own song. >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Vladimir Mayakovski >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? ??? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????? ?????, >>>>>>>>> ? ??? ?? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>>>>>>> ???????? ??? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????. >>>>>>>>> ?? ? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ???? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????, >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????????? >>>>>>>>> ?? ????? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????? ?????. >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? ?????????? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>>>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>>>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>>>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >>>>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >>>>>>>> to the concrete. >>>>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >>>>>>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>>>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>>>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>>>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>>>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>>>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>>>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>>>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>>> ????????????>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% >>>>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . >>>>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>>>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>>>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>>>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange >>>>>>>> reason was not published then or later. >>>>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>>>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. >>>>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>>>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >>>>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >>>>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>>>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>>>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>>>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>>>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>>>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >>>>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>>>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>>>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >>>>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >>>>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>>>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>>>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >>>>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>>>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>>>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>>>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >>>>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >>>>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>>>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>>>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >>>>>>>> return to this somehow later. >>>>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>>>>>>> work of 1988: >>>>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>>>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>>>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >>>>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>>>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>>>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>>>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>>>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>>>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>>>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>>>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>>>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >>>>>> activity. >>>>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >>>>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>>>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>>>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >>>>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>>>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>>>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>>>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>>>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >>>>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>>>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>>>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>>>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>>>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >>>>>> relation.? >>>>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>>>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>>>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>>>>>>> "addressing" to another person. >>>>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>>>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >>>>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>>>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >>>>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>>>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >>>>>> Ilyenkov. >>>>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >>>>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>>>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>>>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>>>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>>>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>>>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>>>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >>>>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>>>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>>>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>>>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>>>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >>>>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>>>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>>>>>>> social relations.. " >>>>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>>>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>>>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>>>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >>>>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >>>>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>>>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>>>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >>>>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>>>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>>>>>>> solved by ourselves. >>>>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>>>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>>>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was AN >>>>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>>>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>>>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >>>>>>>> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of >>>>>>>> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was inclined to >>>>>>>> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, >>>>>>>> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" >>>>>>>> were for communication. >>>>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>>>>>>> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal >>>>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>>>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>>>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>>>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >>>>>>>> rather indecent. >>>>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>>>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>>>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>>>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >>>>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>>>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>>>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>>>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>>>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>>>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>>>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>>>>>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>>>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >>>>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>>>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>>>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed? supporters >>>>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>>>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>>>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>>>>>>> "communication" and "activity." >>>>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>>>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>>>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>>>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. >>>>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >>>>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>>>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>>>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>>>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>>>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >>>>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >>>>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>>>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>>>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>>>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>>>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >>>>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >>>>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>>>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>>>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>>>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my >>>>>>>> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a >>>>>>>> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the >>>>>>>> relation of objective activity and "communication". In the >>>>>>>> same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, >>>>>>>> the active relation of the subject to the object and to >>>>>>>> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, >>>>>>>> indeed, any other, psychology. >>>>>>>>> ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????, >>>>>>>> ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, >>>>>>>> ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, >>>>>>>> ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>>>> ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. >>>>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >>>>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>>>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >>>>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>>>>>>> English text >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>>>> and read it to the end :-). >>>>>>>>> ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >>>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>>> ????????????>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> >>>>>>>>> ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? >>>>>>>> ??????????? ???????? >>>>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ >>>>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% >>>>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% >>>>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% >>>>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% >>>>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% >>>>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >>>>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>>>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >>>>>>>> aside) :-) >>>>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>>>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >>>>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >>>>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>>>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>>>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >>>>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>>>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >>>>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >>>>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >>>>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>>>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>>>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>>>>>>> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>>>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >>>>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >>>>>>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>>>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >>>>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>>>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>>>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>>>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >>>>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>>>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>>>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>>>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical >>>>>>>> verbiage>>>>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ >>>>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> >>>>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>>>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >>>>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >>>>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>>>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>>>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>>>>>>> Agitprop >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? sticks >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? in my teeth too, >>>>>>>>> and I?d rather >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? compose >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? romances for you - >>>>>>>>> more profit in it >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? and more charm. >>>>>>>>> But I >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? subdued >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? myself, >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? setting my heel >>>>>>>>> on the throat >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of my own song. >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Vladimir Mayakovski >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? ??? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????? ?????, >>>>>>>>> ? ??? ?? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>>>>>>> ???????? ??? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????. >>>>>>>>> ?? ? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ???? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????, >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????????? >>>>>>>>> ?? ????? >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????? ?????. >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? ?????????? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>>>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>>>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>>>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >>>>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >>>>>>>> to the concrete. >>>>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >>>>>>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>>>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>>>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>>>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>>>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>>>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>>>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>>>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>>> ????????????>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% >>>>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . >>>>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>>>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>>>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>>>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange >>>>>>>> reason was not published then or later. >>>>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>>>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. >>>>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>>>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >>>>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >>>>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>>>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>>>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>>>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>>>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>>>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >>>>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>>>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>>>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >>>>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >>>>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>>>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>>>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >>>>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>>>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>>>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>>>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >>>>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >>>>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>>>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>>>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >>>>>>>> return to this somehow later. >>>>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>>>>>>> work of 1988: >>>>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>>>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>>>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >>>>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>>>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>>>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>>>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>>>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>>>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>>>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>>>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>>>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >>>>>> activity. >>>>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >>>>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>>>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>>>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >>>>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>>>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>>>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>>>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>>>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >>>>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>>>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>>>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>>>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>>>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >>>>>> relation.? >>>>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>>>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>>>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>>>>>>> "addressing" to another person. >>>>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>>>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >>>>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>>>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >>>>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>>>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >>>>>> Ilyenkov. >>>>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >>>>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>>>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>>>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>>>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>>>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>>>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>>>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >>>>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>>>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>>>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>>>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>>>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >>>>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>>>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>>>>>>> social relations.. " >>>>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>>>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>>>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>>>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >>>>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >>>>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>>>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>>>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >>>>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>>>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>>>>>>> solved by ourselves. >>>>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>>>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>>>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was >>>>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>>>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>>>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >>>>>>>> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas >>>>>>>> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was >>>>>>>> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other >>>>>>>> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas >>>>>>>> "Leningraders" were for "communication". >>>>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>>>>>>> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a literal >>>>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>>>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>>>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>>>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >>>>>>>> rather indecent. >>>>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>>>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>>>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>>>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >>>>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>>>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>>>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>>>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>>>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>>>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>>>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>>>>>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>>>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >>>>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>>>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>>>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed? supporters >>>>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>>>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>>>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>>>>>>> "communication" and "activity." >>>>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>>>> object oriented activity, which is an attribute property >>>>>>>> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, >>>>>>>> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we >>>>>>>> will never get life or object oriented activity even with >>>>>>>> the greatest diligence. >>>>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >>>>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>>>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>>>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>>>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>>>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >>>>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >>>>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>>>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>>>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>>>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>>>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >>>>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >>>>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>>>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>>>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>>>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my diploma >>>>>>>> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist >>>>>>>> theoretical solution to the question of the relation of >>>>>>>> objective activity and "communication". In the same time, >>>>>>>> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active >>>>>>>> relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is >>>>>>>> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, >>>>>>>> any other, psychology. >>>>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >>>>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>>>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >>>>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>>>>>>> English text >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>>>> and read it to the end :-). >>>>>>>>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >>>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>>> ????????????>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> >>>>>>>>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short >>>>>>>> English one >>>>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ >>>>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% >>>>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% >>>>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% >>>>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% >>>>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% >>>>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. >>>>>>>>> Sasha >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > From lstone@skymail.csus.edu Tue Oct 17 13:04:40 2017 From: lstone@skymail.csus.edu (Stone, Lynda) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:04:40 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] job-CSU Sacramento Message-ID: Hello All! Here is a description of job opening for a qualitative researcher grounded in human development and interested in educational settings? Responsibilities include: ? Teaching undergraduate and graduate courses in Child/Human Development, specifically courses related to qualitative research methodology and areas of interest; ? Maintaining a rigorous program of research related to school- and/or community-based qualitative research; ? Supervising and sponsoring student scholarship; assisting with advising and curriculum development/assessment; ? Working collegially with other faculty; and ? Contributing to service in the department, college, university, and profession. Required Qualifications ? An earned Ph.D. in Child/Human Development, Applied Developmental Psychology, Developmental Psychology, Developmental Science, Education, and Psychology, or an equivalent program. ABD candidates will be considered. If ABD, all degree requirements must be completed by August 2018 ? Specialization in qualitative research methods with a strong emphasis in developmental theory. Preferred Qualifications ? Demonstrated leadership potential; ? Interpersonal skills; ? Ability to work with children, students, families, and communities representing diverse populations from diverse backgrounds; ? Demonstrated experience and effectiveness in college level, undergraduate, and/or graduate level teaching; ? Clearly defined interdisciplinary program of qualitative research and publication focusing on children, adolescents, and/or young adults, or demonstrated potential for establishing such a record; ? Experience in educational settings and/or curriculum development. Lynda Stone, Ph.D. Professor Child Development CSUS/UC-Links After-school Program Director From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Tue Oct 17 13:29:55 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:29:55 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <1508190552093.73064@iped.uio.no> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net>, <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1508272197155.32923@iped.uio.no> Dear Haydi, thanks for your dedicated engagement. Just a quick answer: ?I quoted the opening paragraph of chapter 1 of volume 1 of Das Kapital, and the in-text foot note [1] refers to Marx himself, Critique of Political Economy. I hope we get to clarify the differences you raise between 'Capital' and 'Burgeous society' (Andy makes the distinction, Haidy seems to problematize this). The hope is that this thread should be informative to a wider audience, and offer resources for learning/thinking, not for confusion. So, given how complex are these matters, we will gain a lot if we manage to clearly organise the different aspects/matters within each message (this is not a critique to you, but an encouragement to all of us). Alfredo ________________________________ From: ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? Sent: 17 October 2017 17:00 To: ablunden@mira.net; Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole; Ivan Uemlianin; Martin John Packer; Alexander Surmava Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Dear all, From where I stopped : --My focus was on rejection of the existence of a contradiction between ANL?s use of singular/plural activity/activities and arguing that CAPITAL is not to be torn up into pieces/parts. Talking of moments and wholes does not necessarily mean involving units of analysis. -- No, Alfredo. A unit of capital is a firm (or company). Am I confused? Or can I justify myself in attributing a rush for a rapid answer which might be incorrect? A whole investment in what is to be proved otherwise just on the next post? I mean Alfredo?s ?a commodity as the unit of analysis of the Capital". This time we should take a firm with specific connotation inovatively coined as ?a commodity?. Is not this to justify our previous notes? In such cases we say ?A hen has just one leg?. At one time , Modern State is based on the Whole idea in contrast to old Medieval State. At another time , Aggregates are supreme. Has anybody seen Leontiev taking Firms Proper as Activities proper? In the USSR , there were NOT firms , only the State. Andy does not say here if his State is whole or aggregate. But just one can guess he takes it as a Whole. For our discussion no problem if he takes it as an aggregate taking into account that a whole needs moments an aggregate parts. But what is he referring to when he says Leontiev takes micro and Molar in one complex? Inferencially he might have taken a firm as micro in contrast to Molar the more so that he has already issued a firm as an activity But But dear Andy if I?m not so confused even mad , you said in the USSR there were no firms no individual activities for that matter ?? What micros then are you referring to that Leontiev too has drawn it into his discussion? Would it not be better for you to argue that poor L was in total loss of finding the other leg of our Hen? --Andy?If you are so kind to take this as a moderate critique , I then dare repeat if you are an orthodox Marxist (also my mentor on that) why you in a brief span of time let yourself jump up from a thousand times ?I?m an activity theorist? to a point of suppressing it as sort of a null/void? ?Now that the science of Linguistics has progressed so far , talk of activity has gone into waste of time?. ?not the proper quote but at least near to it. This was just short of a multitude. I wonder if this one suffices you to be an orthodox Marxist for your addressee to be a counter one . Incidentally I wanted to tell you there are much evidence that you are a Marxist why then you bring up those words against Marx? Many years back I asked you : Are you then Hegelian? You said , No! I mean at the time also there was overtone and exaggeration on Hegel. --Damn! Commodity exchange is the unit of burgeons society... I have to study more! Thanks Andy "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as ?an immense accumulation of commodities,?[1] *its unit being a single commodity*. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity" This must have been taken from Marx. And please Alfredo , give us the footnote for [1] Is not this ?immense accumulation of commodities? the very Capital? If positive , then the unit not a ?firm? but a commodity. Because a commodity (not any goods or product for subsistence or barter) as to the nature of its definition has the antinomy within itself and again to its very nature is forced to be exchanged and if my memory helps , Marx even after entering the discussion of the exchange phenomenon , returns the discussion back to the existence of potentially both relative and equivalent to one single commodity. --Yes , yes . What yes :-) ? There's the 'Unit of analysis is a commodity'. ? to its roots , to its source , *to its unit* ?? ?but capital ? with capital? ? just to preserve this for later discussions : ...in speech arising in collaborative activity. Your point in the first paragraph is what I was trying to convey to Haidy, to see if there is room there for common ground between your positions. ? --Yes , and this was my answer : First my point in the last paragraph was not which one is the unit of analysis. But that why is it we cannot use such sentences or phrases altogether. For that matter, I concluded that wholes as to their nature are not susceptible to get torn up. They are contiguous phenomena. And I should add that I really do not find myself in a position to receive such kind favours. Thank you! The problem is either I have not read enough to understand which I accept generally or that authorities see themselves too legitimate to think of their occasional drawbacks and then not to see the dwarfs smaller than they deserve to be. Capitals are units of capital. The only whole is the world market, within which units of capital grow and shrink, consume one another and so on. A capital (i.e. a firm) is not a "whole" in the true sense of the word, and I would have an issue with anyone who wants to treat a firm as a "system of activity" if there were any implication that this means a "closed system." --I just want to ask Alfredo if he quoted Marx and if as he or any other folk understood it , the unit of analysis is a commodity. Presently no judgment. --Sasha arrives! He confirms the unit of analysis to be a substantial commodity. We should have more of him. Let?s wait. I read Marx saying the same when writing this in the German Ideology: "The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men-the language of real life." ?And then again, "Language is as old as consciousness, language is practical, real consciousness that exists for other men as well, and only therefore does it also exist for me; language, like consciousness, only arises from the need, the necessity, of intercourse with other men." I do not see here some hierarchy of primaries and secondaries, but rather immanence, humanity as a productive force that has practical and communicative aspects. But I am happy to be in the process of being corrected about this. --I wouldn?t think Sasha consciously mixes up exchanges of goods with exchanges of commodities Alfredo. And as you note , it depends on what social relation of what socio-economic formation we base our argument . ?an orderliness that is self-generating and irreducible to any of the communicating 'parties' ?irrespective of whether these parties are engaged in any human material productive activity or not or if their communication could have any relationship to that process generally if not locally or temporally--or their messages. Don?t you think it sounds a bit dualistic? I add something to your sentence please see if you again could confirm it. I remember the travel by plane all intermittent talk , etc. Those talks were all mixed up with actions processes affecting each other as Andy says. One could think of partial independence of consciousness but not ultimate segregation and separation. This was reserved for this moment : Andy : ? just to preserve this for later discussions : ...in speech arising in collaborative activity. But you also remarked : activity constituted in communication. I talked about it. And about historical essential precedence. But now generally intertwined. I read Marx saying the same when writing this in the German Ideology: "The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men-the language of real life." Is the language of real life here equal to the very self-generating independent communication you mentioned? ?And then again, "Language is as old as consciousness, language is practical, real consciousness that exists for other men as well, and only therefore does it also exist for me; language, like consciousness, only arises from the need, the necessity, of intercourse with other men." I do not see here some hierarchy of primaries and secondaries, but rather immanence, humanity as a productive force that has practical and communicative aspects. But I am happy to be in the process of being corrected about this. This is also a follow-up from the above. What about 'at first'? Humanity thinks and speaks but further than the Commune humans as relating to their relevant classes either toil or exploit or double-deal staggering between the two. --To our time zone , I began in the morning and now is night. Andy?s last message needs a fresher mind. Now good night! I hope this reaches you non-crumbled non-clattered. I won't be able to view it. Best Haydi ________________________________ From: Andy Blunden To: Alfredo Jornet Gil ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" ; Mike Cole ; ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? ; Ivan Uemlianin ; Martin John Packer ; Alexander Surmava Sent: Tuesday, 17 October 2017, 1:46:24 Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication The idea of producing for exchange being something essential outside of a world in which products are exchanged is to my mind something as curious as something being a hammer outside of a world in which there are nails. In preparing the conceptual foundation of Capital, Marx wrote the Grundrisse and in the Introduction he makes clear that production, distribution, exchange and consumption form a unity, a whole, and have to be analysed as such: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc2 "Thus production, distribution, exchange and consumption form a regular syllogism; production is the generality, distribution and exchange the particularity, and consumption the singularity in which the whole is joined together." Andy ________________________________ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 17/10/2017 8:49 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: So, not commodity exchange, but commodity production, Sasha. That is of course in line with everything else you can read in Marx, including the introductory paragraphs of the German Ideology, and sounds right. Although I did not think that 'exchange of goods' was synonymous with 'exchange of commodities,' It is a whole different thing, and what you are saying is that these are different because of the type of relations of production. Sounds right to me. There are theories that take communication to be an exchange of words, or of signs, or of ideas as you write, a 'negotiation of meanings' others say. But there are alternatives to that too, some of which characterise the communicative relation as a productive force, an orderliness that is self-generating and irreducible to any of the communicating 'parties' or their messages. Led by W-M Roth, we have written about this. Taking that perspective, and this may be because I am 'only' a student, and one much less qualified than the one you speak about in your message, it becomes very difficult for me to have communication to be somehow secondary. As it's been suggested here. I feel more comfortable thinking of 'productive activity' or object oriented activity, as manifesting both as practical activity and as communicative activity; but not first the one and only later the other. I read Marx saying the same when writing this in the German Ideology: "The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men-the language of real life." ?And then again, "Language is as old as consciousness, language is practical, real consciousness that exists for other men as well, and only therefore does it also exist for me; language, like consciousness, only arises from the need, the necessity, of intercourse with other men." I do not see here some hierarchy of primaries and secondaries, but rather immanence, humanity as a productive force that has practical and communicative aspects. But I am happy to be in the process of being corrected about this. Alfredo PS: The text by Ilyenkov that Sasha refers to is available at Marxists.org, here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/abstract/index.htm ________________________________ From: Alexander Surmava Sent: 16 October 2017 17:00 To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Alfredo Jornet Gil; Mike Cole; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Ivan Uemlianin; Martin John Packer Subject: ???: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Dear colleagues, Excuse me for the delay in responding to your previous posts about Leontiev and Vygotsky. The problems that we are discussing are so serious that it takes a long time to think about them and formulate an answer. Especially in English :-). Therefore, the main answer I hope to put on the XMCA no earlier than tomorrow. But suddenly the discussion turned into an extremely interesting side. I mean analysis of the logic of "Das Kapital". It is discussed what can and should be properly considered the unit of analysis of both Capital and ?Das Kapital?, the world system of capitalism and its reflection in Marx? theoretic masterpiece. At least two hypotheses have been voiced. The first is that such a unit is a separate " business", a capitalist firm. And the second, that the unit of analysis is the exchange of goods. I think that I can hardly agree with both hypotheses. It seems to me that for Marx the first, most abstract stage of analysis is in no case the exchange of goods, but the commodity itself. And not an abstract commodity, but a commodity produced under capitalistic relations. Therefore, the unit of analysis is strictly speaking the very production of such a commodity. The exchange of goods occurs not only under capitalism, but also under slavery, and under feudalism. This is not an independent, not substantial concept. The exchange depends on the mode of production, and not vice versa. The same can be applied to "communication" in psychology, to the "exchange" of ideas, caresses or beatings. This communication does not occur due to certain immanent laws of interpersonal communication, but entirely depends on the collaborative object-oriented activity (predmetnoy deyatelnosty), collective labor of historically determined individuals. In turn, the nature of their collective work, depends not on the distribution of genes in their genomes, but on the distribution of the means of production, on the distribution of labor instruments. Let us emphasize, not on the distribution of verbal signs, not on ideology, but on the distribution of the most material weapons of human activity. With communist greetings :-) , Sasha P.S. By the way, I enthusiastically welcome the fact that our discussion has switched from discussing Vygotsky's "units" to discussing the most abstract category of "Das Kapital" of Marx, that is, from a pale copy, to the original. By the way, in the future it might be interesting to re-read the "Dialectics of the abstract and concrete in scientific and theoretical thinking" by EV Ilyenkov. This work contains an elaborate analysis of the method of Marx, in comparison with which Vygotsky's methodological reflexion seems to be something quite student-like. ________________________________ ??: Andy Blunden ????: Alfredo Jornet Gil ; "xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu" ??????????: ???????????, 16 ??????? 2017 15:51 ????: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Capitals are units of capital. The only whole is the world market, within which units of capital grow and shrink, consume one another and so on. A capital (i.e. a firm) is not a "whole" in the true sense of the word, and I would have an issue with anyone who wants to treat a firm as a "system of activity" if there were any implication that this means a "closed system." Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 16/10/2017 11:42 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > Your point in the first paragraph is what I was trying to > convey to Haidy, to see if there is room there for common > ground between your positions. ? > > Alfredo > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> > *Sent:* 16 October 2017 14:39 > *To:* Alfredo Jornet Gil; xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity and communication > > > Yes, yes, Alfredo! But what is often overlooked is that > the aim of Marx's research is not commodity exchange (in > itself a harmless business) but capital. But he does not > *start* with capital, but goes down to its roots, its > source, in the circulation of commodities. > > Compare with Vygotsky's analysis of the intellect > (thinking). Word meanings are *not* the subject matter of > Vygotsky's research (who gives a damn!?), but concepts! > But he does not start with concepts, but goes down to its > roots, its source, in speech arising in collaborative > activity. Actually, AN Leontyev missed this, as can be > seen in his trenchant attack on Vygotsky in his ?Study of > the Environment in the Pedological Works of L. S. Vygotsky". > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 16/10/2017 11:31 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >> Damn! Commodity exchange is the unit of burgeons society... I have to study more! Thanks Andy >> >> "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as ?an immense accumulation of commodities,?[1] its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity" >> >> Alfredo >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> >> Sent: 16 October 2017 14:22 >> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >> >> Just to illustrate that I am being an orthodox Marxist here, >> from Chapter 10, Vol. 3 of Capital: >> >> "In the case of capitals of average, or approximately >> average, composition, the price of production is thus >> the same or almost the same as the value, and the profit >> the same as the surplus-value produced by them. All >> other capitals, of whatever composition, tend toward >> this average under pressure of competition. But since >> the capitals of average composition are of the same, or >> approximately the same, structure as the average social >> capital, all capitals have the tendency, regardless of >> the surplus-value produced by them, to realize the >> average profit, rather than their own surplus-value in >> the price of their commodity, i.e., to realize the >> prices of production." >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 16/10/2017 11:18 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >>> No, Alfredo. A unit of capital is a firm (or company). It is >>> impossible to explain the formation of a rate of profit (at >>> least as Marx does in /Capital/) without the conception of >>> units of capital, namely, firms and the competition between >>> them. Firms are of course, what Engestrom would call a >>> "system of activity" or I would call a "project" and >>> Leontyev almost could call an activity. But in the USSR >>> there were no firms, only the state. It is perhaps A N >>> Leonytev's greatest discovery that there are both micro and >>> molar units in any complex process. True in Psychology and >>> true in political economy. Whereas exchange of commodities >>> is an artefact-mediated action, a firm is an activity, a >>> specific aggregate of actions, directed towards the >>> quantitative maximisation of the value of the unit of capital. >>> >>> English is not a perfect language either. : ) The word >>> "consciousness" has the unfortunate connotation of being a >>> mass noun (or continuous substance) whereas it is know only, >>> of course, in individual "consciousnesses" or "minds." But >>> it sounds so clumsy to say "a consciousness." >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 16/10/2017 11:07 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>>> Haydi, >>>> >>>> I think Andy does not mean 'one capital' versus 'several capitals', for, if I read Andy adequately, Capital is for him not a unit but rather the whole of which commodity exchange is the unit. Thus, the germ cell of Capital is thus not Capital, or 'a' Capital, which you seem to attribute to Andy; just as I don't think he is arguing that there is consciousness, and then many consciousnesses. So it may be that you two agree more than disagree, judging by your last paragraph. >>>> >>>> Whether his position on singular and plurals is more or less adequate than another positions, that I leave it up to the discussion. >>>> >>>> Alfredo >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com> >>>> Sent: 16 October 2017 09:45 >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Andy Blunden >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >>>> >>>> Thank you David for your explanation! Though for me it needs more than one read. >>>> >>>> The point was whether use of activity and activities in Leontiev is a contradiction. Whoever L was and whatever he believed in , he was not so negligent to the point of posing activity first and immediately after that recounting 'activities'. Translation ruled out a committed error. Then such a blundering display must have a justification rather than a misunderstanding in comprehension. >>>> >>>> In one sense all things are related. The more so with the Monistic View. We have so many corporate and incorporate things , two of them so problematic communication and practical activity since Descartes and we are determined to avoid Dualism and refer and return all phenomena to that same thing , the one substance. In the actuality of the world , there's nothing discrete , that is , absolutely unrelated. Is that pretext for us not to see this unbounded versatility and hues and dues as distinct coloring? Maybe one of the ways was for man to let Nature go unrestrained?? But man also did not come of its own will. >>>> >>>> The sole way destined or open to Man was of its Nature to engage with the surrounding. To deal with it sensually and subjectively/agently. Then Man in one time interpreted all phenomena as they appeared to him. But he grew up further than his infantile period. He learnt to delve into matters , go deeper and deeper. With one spectacle (plane) he observed how that single substance let its attributes multiply themselves into different shapes and colors and Modes. With another plane of the one spectacle observed the variation of the Modes themselves. I mean Ontology and Epistemology not yet separate from each other as I used a pair of planes for that matter. >>>> >>>> Then we usually don't use a nail-clipper for alterations and manipulations in Genes. Or devices for Genes for our feeding and nutrition. It is then within these constraints that corporate and incorporate phenomena differ. Singles and plurals differ. Discrete and the indivisible differ. Parts and Moments differ. Wholes and mere entities differ. A process and a product resulting from that process differ. No justification to interchange them because of the use of A in front of them. >>>> >>>> I wonder if this is true for others too. For me it's difficult to accept to say "this capital that capital" "those 8 capitals united" "capitals of the world dissolved into unanimity". If I'm correct in this , it's , I think , because Capital is a Whole , coming out of a long process of functions and disfunctions , moments of circulations and transient stagnation , booms and boosts and drawbacks and failures. The moment of its conception in the exchange of commodities up to the discovery of the private appropriation of the surplus value to the point of harnessing every means to penetrate each tight corner of the big World. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Haydi >>>> >>>> >>>> From: David Kellogg > >>>> To: Andy Blunden >; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> >>>> Sent: Monday, 16 October 2017, 2:21:12 >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >>>> >>>> Of course, neither an object nor a process is discrete (or even, as Andy >>>> says, "discreet"). Who can tell me where a mountain river ends and the >>>> alluvial plain begins? Certainly not Cezanne or the phenomenologists who so >>>> loved him. Yet a mountain is most assuredly an object, just as surely >>>> as climbing the mountain to ascertain its degree of montagnitude is a >>>> process. >>>> >>>> This last week I've been struggling through the "Curriculum Reforms" >>>> wrought by three right wing governments in Norway, Finland, and New >>>> Zealand. Like Catalonia, these are all countries where unpopular coalitions >>>> of right parties are replacing a much more popular but obviously >>>> unsuccessful social democratic coalition of left parties. In Norway and in >>>> Finland, the coalition actually includes the far right, neo-fascist, >>>> anti-immigrant parties, and in New Zealand it includes the ACT, that is, an >>>> "association of consumers and taxpayers" whose main interest is cutting >>>> education budgets, starting by making teachers and students fight each >>>> other for scarce resources in the form of "block grants". >>>> >>>> Now, all of these governments are more or less bound by something called >>>> DeSeCo, which is short for Describe and Select Competences. This is because >>>> right-wing ideology sees education not as a public good but as a commodity, >>>> to be judged by tangible results and priced accordingly. This presents a >>>> real theoretical problem for right-wingers, because they ALSO see that >>>> "flexible labor markets" and "entrepreneurial spirit" means that there >>>> isn't any way of deciding on what skills or even what knowledge the >>>> "economy of the future" will demand. >>>> >>>> We can see this in the emphasis on "competence". Competence is not a thing >>>> or a process, and it is neither discrete nor discreet. Of course, if you >>>> are a linguist, competence is something Chomsky thought of in the sixties, >>>> an abstract form of knowledge in a hypothetical native speaker-hearer in an >>>> imaginary homogenous speech community. It is "discrete" in the sense of >>>> being nowhere and nowhen connectible to performance in any way. It is >>>> therefore "discreet" in the sense of being untestable--as soon as you test >>>> it, you have a form of performance, not competence. It's like standing in >>>> front of a classroom with a picture of a guy swimming and trying to teach >>>> the expression "i can swim". What you have in the picture is not "I can >>>> swim"; it's manifestly "he is swimming". >>>> >>>> But in DeSeCo, you get these lists of competences, which are set up as if >>>> they were discrete so you can list them on a Powerpoint slide and sell them >>>> to ministries of education. And the real selling point is that, on the one >>>> hand, because they are all "meta-skills" and "meta-knowledges", they don't >>>> have any practical outcome or real commitment to a job and a livelihood. >>>> And on the other, they sound terribly powerful when you phrase them as >>>> "learning to learn" or "transversal competence" or "meta-cognitive skills" >>>> or something like that. Jobs, in other words, are discretionary. After >>>> centuries of promising jobs and livelhood in return for school and boredom, >>>> the Western economies have decided that sticks are cheaper than carrots, >>>> and the thing to do is simply to rule people who don't have educational >>>> certificates out of the job market rather than try to provide >>>> actual know-how and factual know-that. >>>> >>>> Here are my four favorites (i.e. the four that we stress in our own >>>> curricular reform here in South Korea): >>>> >>>> interpersonal competence (sociability, the ability to 'be alone with >>>> others' as Hughlings Jackson put it) >>>> cultural competence (enculturation, the ability to understand traditions, >>>> mores, and norms) >>>> creative competence (intelligence, innovation, yadda yadda) >>>> individual competence (the ability to dress yourself, feed yourself, and >>>> show up for an interview where you will not be offered a job) >>>> >>>> Vygotsky, as usual, has a better idea--it's a mountain. We just turn the >>>> DeSeCO PPT upside down. Then we add each competence---freedom, creative >>>> intelligence, encultured habits and tastes, and instiinctive >>>> sociability--as a superstructure erected on the basis of the previous one: >>>> >>>> free will (the ability to make choices that are not necessarily intelligent >>>> or habitual or instinctive) >>>> intelligence (the ability to make choices that are not habitual or >>>> instinctive but nevertheless adaptive) >>>> enculturation (the ability to make choices that are not instinctive but >>>> conform to the choices that have proven successful in the now socialized >>>> environment) >>>> instinct (the ability to make choices that are responsive to the >>>> environment and which conform to the choices that have proven successful in >>>> phylogenesis) >>>> >>>> Are theses objects? Of course, if we say so. And processes? Well, how else >>>> could they have come about? What they are not, however, is either >>>> "discrete" or "discreet": they are clearly linked to each other, and they >>>> are all linked, through the lower layer, to adaptations ot the environment. >>>> >>>> And there's the rub--where the rubber meets the road. The real question, >>>> for our teachers and for our children, is about what will happen to them >>>> now that these competences can no longer be redeemed in jobs. Will the >>>> anti-Faustian bargain of exchanging your youth for a >>>> stable middle-aged livelihood survive? >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Haydi, you say "AN activity is not a thing ; it's a >>>>> process." I wonder then what is a thing which is not also a >>>>> process? (I interpret "thing" as meaning "something >>>>> discrete," otherwise your objection makes no sense.) The >>>>> point is that Hegel does not make this dichotomy - every >>>>> thing is also a process and vice versa. That a process is >>>>> also discreet is important because it is only thanks to its >>>>> discreteness that we can cognise the process and in fact >>>>> only thanks to its discreteness that a process can affect >>>>> anything else. To speak of processes which are not also >>>>> discrete is to speak in abstractions. >>>>> >>>>> On this point, when Hegel puts ideas above matter, it has to >>>>> be realised that for Hegel "ideas" are social practices - he >>>>> is simply place human practice at the centre of human life >>>>> and its comprehension, rather than the mechanical and >>>>> chemical processes of Nature. If you think that "ideas" are >>>>> simply chimera inside our heads, then, of course, Hegel's >>>>> idealism seems like madness. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, all the Marxists have blasted Hegel. As they must. >>>>> Otherwise they must end up advocates of Constitutional >>>>> Monarchy. But while Marx uses almost every mention he makes >>>>> of Hegel to criticise him, often in extreme terms, it can go >>>>> unnoticed the extent to which in practice Marx follows Hegel >>>>> in philosophy. Of course Marx is not equal to Hegel, but >>>>> simple formulae do not contribute to understanding the relation. >>>>> >>>>> Andy >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>> On 15/10/2017 6:51 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: >>>>>> Andy, >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me first apologize to David Kellog because in others' >>>>>> wandering and perplexity it was he who in his reading of >>>>>> Gramsci's prison letters came across this point and made >>>>>> you not only accept the inappropriateness of Hegel's >>>>>> headstand as Crowning every worldly affair deriving from >>>>>> the People's Heads "Idea" , "Absolute" but also >>>>>> intensifying this point with more examples and references >>>>>> from Engels' "utopian versus genuine socialism" on your >>>>>> part. Of course you've been helping us on many occasions >>>>>> and you're very welcome for this nothing to be denied. >>>>>> >>>>>> At this point we have no problem with translation. >>>>>> Leontiev meant it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Suppose that ANL does not know "individual" which is very >>>>>> ambiguous because in what then one should seek the >>>>>> embodiment of the "particular" and if one takes the very >>>>>> particular as individual , then everything gets mixed up . >>>>>> Then what about you who stick firmly on individual >>>>>> discrete detached activities as an objection to Sasha's >>>>>> sole ACTIVITY as theoretical understanding. >>>>>> >>>>>> As you well know even AN activity is not a thing ; it's a >>>>>> process. And you once distinguished between GENERAL WORK >>>>>> ACTIVITY and LABOUR ACTIVITY or VALORIZATION ACTIVITY >>>>>> which was quite right and timely though you recently gave >>>>>> differing definitions in no way harmonious to your >>>>>> previous definitions. But the main problem is blending >>>>>> clarity in expression with concrete in theory. No doubt >>>>>> you're a Fan of Hegel. I should repeat myself : Hegel is a >>>>>> hero of theoretical concepts. In theorizing , and for him >>>>>> to explicate the Essence of Phenomena , he begins with >>>>>> apparently concrete things as ABSTRACTS finally reaches >>>>>> CONCRETE UNIVERSALS as concepts. And here we again very >>>>>> surprisingly see you put your finger upon what you should >>>>>> have known in person is contrary to your own erudition. >>>>>> Turning Hegel down as believing in discrete abstracts. >>>>>> >>>>>> And now to his son's comment : What individual are you >>>>>> pursuing? Your Hegel sees phenomena in their relations. >>>>>> According to him and also according to ANL ACTIVITY as a >>>>>> unit of Life is Molar non-additive. He even does not see >>>>>> operations as single acts. It's a matter of the angle of >>>>>> vision not detachment and concreteness. If his son had >>>>>> talked of concreteness in moments of activity , then you >>>>>> were right in your objections and oppositions. You please >>>>>> give us your last definition of activity here (not in >>>>>> lengthy references) so that we can have a discerning >>>>>> option. >>>>>> So far to remove the problem we should accept operations >>>>>> are separately and independently carried out ; actions in >>>>>> their own are carried out ; activities are carried out >>>>>> arbitrarily. And these are done to the realization of man >>>>>> as the ensemble of social relations based on some >>>>>> infrastructure. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hegel's metaphor has been thrown back at him by Marx , >>>>>> Engels , Lenin , Vygotsky , Ilyenko , and many others. If >>>>>> you like to stand above all Giants of Marxism , it's >>>>>> something perfectly and absolutely Personal as you're >>>>>> speaking out loud! Then why give us so many references. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> >>>>>> Haydi >>>>>> >>>>>> P.S. Alfredo! Though you have my previous private response >>>>>> concerning the matters you pose I see myself accountable >>>>>> to rewrite them to the Public. Thanks! >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> *From:* Andy Blunden > >>>>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, 15 October 2017, 5:35:40 >>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity >>>>>> and communication >>>>>> >>>>>> Haydi, partly the problem with ANL's >>>>>> philosophy-as-we-know-it is simply a product of its >>>>>> translation into English. But partly it is also in his >>>>>> philosophy. As Victor Kaptelinin first pointed out (so far >>>>>> as I know), ANL knows the universal and the particular but >>>>>> he does not know the individual. And his son's comment that >>>>>> ANL did not conceive of Activity as being discrete proves >>>>>> this to be the case. Thus his concept of Activity is not a >>>>>> fully concrete concept. And this is not a product of >>>>>> translation. >>>>>> >>>>>> As David Kellogg has kindly pointed out to me, it was Hegel >>>>>> who actually first introduced this metaphor of people >>>>>> "walking (or standing) on their heads." Personally, I don't >>>>>> think it has ever helped anyone understand the defect of >>>>>> Hegel's philosophy to throw this metaphor back at him. As >>>>>> demonstrated in this issue (the concept of activity) it was >>>>>> Hegel who understood that a concept must have all three >>>>>> moments - universal, particular and individual. >>>>>> >>>>>> Andy >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>> On 15/10/2017 9:24 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: >>>>>>> Dear Mike, >>>>>>> Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an >>>>>> activist for his concreteness and clarifications is >>>>>> crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot >>>>>> ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes , Parts , >>>>>> and Moments. He personally provided us with examples from >>>>>> Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they convert >>>>>> Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced with the >>>>>> same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most >>>>>> valuable contribution) does not begin with the individual >>>>>> case in isolation which phenomenologically speaking (in >>>>>> contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for >>>>>> appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not obtained >>>>>> because one instance is considered detached from all >>>>>> relations and its subservience to the service of the >>>>>> Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is particular in >>>>>> some feature/s. And these particulars are essential. With >>>>>> other particulars in other individuals they are related >>>>>> actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense , this whole >>>>>> could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life itself. >>>>>> Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is , >>>>>> with category and concept only therefore , following Marx >>>>>> and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again on his >>>>>> feet (not that the firmament to that time did put "idea" >>>>>> on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on their >>>>>> heads but to put them again headstand thinking and acting >>>>>> with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just >>>>>> with their brains. Then taking all options in translation >>>>>> even that of a Machine into consideration it does not seem >>>>>> to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of >>>>>> Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of >>>>>> activities thereafter. These activities are those arising >>>>>> from the properties of versatile objects in turn arising >>>>>> from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile >>>>>> needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think >>>>>> Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual >>>>>> activities as moments with the broadest idea of the >>>>>> Monistic Substantial Modes or States in Philosophical >>>>>> terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn integrate and >>>>>> are dissolved into Monism of Substance. >>>>>>> Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche >>>>>> (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one >>>>>> Substance) is already there with the organism actively and >>>>>> spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own , >>>>>> positioning its due object and moving along its contours >>>>>> and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to itself >>>>>> , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and >>>>>> bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as >>>>>> novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with >>>>>> Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with a huge >>>>>> gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of >>>>>> consciousness , now apparently ascending to "wording" and >>>>>> "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration) further >>>>>> "communication" as something indispensable and necessary >>>>>> and inevitable to the realization of life affairs. >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> Haydi >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: mike cole >>>>>> mcole@ucsd.edu>> >>>>>>> To: Andy Blunden >>>>>> ablunden@mira.net>>; "eXtended Mind, Culture, >>>>>> Activity" >>>>>> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>> >>>>>>> Cc: Alexander Surmava >>>>>> alexander.surmava@yahoo.com>>; ivan-dgf >>>>>> <ivan-dgf@migmail.ru >>; Ivan >>>>>> Uemlianin >>; >>>>>> Haydi Zulfei >>>>>> haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>> >>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50 >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented >>>>>> activity and communication >>>>>>> Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.Could someone post >>>>>> the Russian text next to the English so that it is >>>>>> possible to compare it with the translation? I spent >>>>>> several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of >>>>>> Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally defeated >>>>>> me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra rubles in >>>>>> my pocket. >>>>>>> Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us >>>>>> a "true" translation. >>>>>>> mike >>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden >>>>>> <ablunden@mira.net >> wrote: >>>>>>> The Progress Publishers English translation of "Activity and >>>>>>> Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of >>>>>>> Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, >>>>>>> material life of the material subject. In the narrower >>>>>>> sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a unit of >>>>>>> life, mediated by mental reflection, by >>>>>>> an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the >>>>>>> subject in the objective world. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The >>>>>>> Development of Mind" we have: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an >>>>>>> organism?s activity; the different activities that realise >>>>>>> its diverse vital relations with the surrounding reality are >>>>>>> essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore >>>>>>> differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively >>>>>>> different] types of activity according to the difference in >>>>>>> their objects. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses >>>>>>> "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has >>>>>>> been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for >>>>>>> English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean simply >>>>>>> "category." The second does the same, but in addition makes >>>>>>> it evident that the plural does not refer to different >>>>>>> activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the >>>>>>> possibility of forming a true concept of activity >>>>>> altogether. >>>>>>> With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is >>>>>>> simply that "such an initial *category* can only be >>>>>>> object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing >>>>>>> that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, >>>>>>> even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics. >>>>>> <http://www.ethicalpolitics./>org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>> On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: >>>>>>>> Dear Andy! >>>>>>>> I am glad that our communication was resumed after many >>>>>>>> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and files >>>>>>>> and found that the problem of "object oriented activity OR >>>>>>>> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before >>>>>>>> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is serious and >>>>>>>> it deserves to return to it today. >>>>>>>> Last year I was close to being silent forever. >>>>>>>> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed >>>>>>>> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the >>>>>>>> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my >>>>>>>> theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my >>>>>>>> descendants :-). >>>>>>>> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not >>>>>>>> understand your question. What means the distinction >>>>>>>> between singular and plural number in your remark? Could >>>>>>>> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the >>>>>>>> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my >>>>>>>> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, >>>>>>>> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of >>>>>>>> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my dissertation >>>>>>>> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's "Theory of >>>>>>>> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, >>>>>>>> having understood the theoretic meaning of your claims to >>>>>>>> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily >>>>>>>> understand the essence of your objections to me. >>>>>>>> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I >>>>>>>> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a >>>>>>>> particular empirical case of its manifestation. Therefore, >>>>>>>> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just like >>>>>>>> Matter, Nature, or Substance. >>>>>>>> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come across >>>>>>>> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its >>>>>>>> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the >>>>>>>> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old >>>>>>>> philosophers and that only the numerous individual "atomic >>>>>>>> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really >>>>>>>> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar >>>>>>>> positivism and empiricism. >>>>>>>> However, all of this may not apply to your position ... >>>>>>>> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. >>>>>>>> Best wishes >>>>>>>> Sasha >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> <ablunden@mira.net >> ?????(?): >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'll ask Sasha a question. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial >>>>>>>> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it >>>>>> stands, >>>>>>>> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be >>>>>> that you >>>>>>>> are translating it from a Russian statement that is >>>>>> correct. >>>>>>>> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in when I >>>>>>>> say "every activity has an object." But in your expression >>>>>>>> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and >>>>>> unless >>>>>>>> you are a religious person is not something which can >>>>>> have a >>>>>>>> specific object. All English translations of A N Leontyev >>>>>>>> make this mistake which has caused no end of confusion >>>>>> among >>>>>>>> English-speakers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," just as >>>>>>>> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics. >>>>>> <http://www.ethicalpolitics./>org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>>>>>>>> Dear Sasha, all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding >>>>>>>> response. I think you are right in your assertion that we >>>>>>>> are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of >>>>>>>> CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. However, one >>>>>>>> can see in the lack of response by other members?? that >>>>>>>> not everyone has the privilege of the time it requires to >>>>>>>> go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing >>>>>>>> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce and I >>>>>>>> hope it is/will be appreciated as such. >>>>>>>>> If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I quote >>>>>>>> from your response: >>>>>>>>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>>>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>>>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>>>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" >>>>>>>>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework >>>>>>>> according to which we are looking of the most original >>>>>>>> germ cell, the one from which all others can be >>>>>>>> developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I >>>>>>>> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree on >>>>>> that. >>>>>>>>> But ??once we are back to the development of a concrete >>>>>>>> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact that, for >>>>>>>> any child to participate in human forms of object-oriented >>>>>>>> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented >>>>>>>> activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular >>>>>>>> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into those >>>>>>>> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category >>>>>>>> devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with >>>>>>>> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you describe, is >>>>>>>> this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, or is >>>>>>>> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? >>>>>>>>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others answer >>>>>>>> (which I hope some do). >>>>>>>>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in >>>>>>>> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of teaching >>>>>>>> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this >>>>>>>> is only possible through *involvement* in collective >>>>>>>> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary >>>>>>>> over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is >>>>>>>> only possible in and through object-oriented activity). >>>>>>>> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional aspect of >>>>>>>> the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to >>>>>>>> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this >>>>>>>> object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all >>>>>>>> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually >>>>>>>> uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such >>>>>>>> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get >>>>>>>> collective activity without them? On this, and precisely >>>>>>>> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of Man", >>>>>>>> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in that >>>>>>>> case that communication is included in activity and is its >>>>>>>> essential component: without relation to another >>>>>>>> person(s), activity is impossible' (144). Although I not >>>>>>>> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I can't >>>>>>>> see how he can be wrong. >>>>>>>>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of >>>>>>>> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the >>>>>>>> category of object-oriented activity, is most primary. Let >>>>>>>> me also note that ?there are other authors who have >>>>>>>> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you >>>>>>>> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on >>>>>>>> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom >>>>>>>> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of auto-affection' ( >>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/ Incarnation-Philosophy- >>>>>> Studies-Phenomenology- Existential/dp/0810131269 >>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I wonder >>>>>>>> whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity >>>>>>>> and communication. Is not the distinction just an artefact >>>>>>>> of a partial understanding of what it means activity and >>>>>>>> what it means communicating. I still feel that >>>>>>>> communication, in the sense of addressivity that Mikhailov >>>>>>>> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for >>>>>>>> semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity >>>>>>>> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't >>>>>>>> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps >>>>>>>> naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication >>>>>>>> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in >>>>>>>> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I >>>>>>>> don't see how any practical activity can have any sense >>>>>>>> (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. >>>>>>>> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are >>>>>>>> talking about; one machines could perform on their own >>>>>>>> without consciousness. ? >>>>>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ______________________________ __ >>>>>>>>> From: Alexander Surmava <alexander.surmava@yahoo.com >>>>>> alexander.surmava@yahoo.com> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 >>>>>>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.> edu>; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo >>>>>>>> Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole >>>>>>>>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >>>>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>>>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >>>>>>>> aside) :-) >>>>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>>>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >>>>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >>>>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>>>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>>>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >>>>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>>>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >>>>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >>>>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >>>>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>>>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>>>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>>>>>>> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>>>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >>>>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >>>>>>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>>>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >>>>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>>>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>>>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>>>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >>>>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>>>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>>>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>>>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical >>>>>>>> verbiage. >>>>>> <https://www./>multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ >>>>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> >>>>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>>>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >>>>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >>>>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>>>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>>>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>>>>>>> Agitprop >>>>>>>>> sticks >>>>>>>>> in my teeth too, >>>>>>>>> and I?d rather >>>>>>>>> compose >>>>>>>>> romances for you - >>>>>>>>> more profit in it >>>>>>>>> and more charm. >>>>>>>>> But I >>>>>>>>> subdued >>>>>>>>> myself, >>>>>>>>> setting my heel >>>>>>>>> on the throat >>>>>>>>> of my own song. >>>>>>>>> Vladimir Mayakovski >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? ??? >>>>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>>>> ? ????? ?????, >>>>>>>>> ? ??? ?? >>>>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>>>> ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>>>>>>> ???????? ??? >>>>>>>>> ? ??????????. >>>>>>>>> ?? ? >>>>>>>>> ???? >>>>>>>>> ??????, >>>>>>>>> ????????? >>>>>>>>> ?? ????? >>>>>>>>> ??????????? ?????. >>>>>>>>> ???????? ?????????? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>>>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>>>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>>>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >>>>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >>>>>>>> to the concrete. >>>>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >>>>>>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>>>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>>>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>>>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>>>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>>>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>>>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>>>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>>> ????????????. >>>>>> <https://www./>academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% >>>>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . >>>>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>>>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>>>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>>>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange >>>>>>>> reason was not published then or later. >>>>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>>>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. >>>>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>>>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >>>>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >>>>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>>>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>>>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>>>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>>>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>>>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >>>>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>>>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>>>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >>>>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >>>>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>>>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>>>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >>>>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>>>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>>>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>>>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >>>>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >>>>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>>>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>>>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >>>>>>>> return to this somehow later. >>>>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>>>>>>> work of 1988: >>>>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>>>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>>>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >>>>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>>>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>>>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>>>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>>>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>>>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>>>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>>>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>>>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >>>>>> activity. >>>>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >>>>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>>>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>>>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >>>>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>>>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>>>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>>>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>>>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >>>>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>>>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>>>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>>>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>>>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >>>>>> relation.? >>>>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>>>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>>>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>>>>>>> "addressing" to another person. >>>>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>>>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >>>>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>>>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >>>>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>>>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >>>>>> Ilyenkov. >>>>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >>>>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>>>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>>>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>>>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>>>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>>>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>>>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >>>>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>>>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>>>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>>>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>>>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >>>>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>>>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>>>>>>> social relations.. " >>>>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>>>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>>>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>>>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >>>>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >>>>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>>>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>>>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >>>>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>>>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>>>>>>> solved by ourselves. >>>>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>>>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>>>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was AN >>>>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>>>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>>>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >>>>>>>> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of >>>>>>>> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was inclined to >>>>>>>> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, >>>>>>>> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" >>>>>>>> were for communication. >>>>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>>>>>>> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal >>>>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>>>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>>>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>>>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >>>>>>>> rather indecent. >>>>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>>>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>>>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>>>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >>>>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>>>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>>>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>>>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>>>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>>>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>>>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>>>>>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>>>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >>>>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>>>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>>>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters >>>>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>>>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>>>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>>>>>>> "communication" and "activity." >>>>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>>>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>>>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>>>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. >>>>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >>>>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>>>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>>>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>>>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>>>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >>>>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >>>>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>>>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>>>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>>>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>>>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >>>>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >>>>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>>>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>>>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>>>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my >>>>>>>> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a >>>>>>>> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the >>>>>>>> relation of objective activity and "communication". In the >>>>>>>> same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, >>>>>>>> the active relation of the subject to the object and to >>>>>>>> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, >>>>>>>> indeed, any other, psychology. >>>>>>>>> ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????, >>>>>>>> ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, >>>>>>>> ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, >>>>>>>> ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>>>> ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. >>>>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >>>>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>>>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >>>>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>>>>>>> English text >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>>>> and read it to the end :-). >>>>>>>>> ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >>>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>>> ????????????. >>>>>> <https://www./>academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> >>>>>>>>> ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? >>>>>>>> ??????????? ???????? >>>>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ >>>>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% >>>>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% >>>>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% >>>>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% >>>>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% >>>>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >>>>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>>>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >>>>>>>> aside) :-) >>>>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>>>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >>>>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >>>>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>>>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>>>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >>>>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>>>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >>>>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >>>>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >>>>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>>>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>>>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>>>>>>> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>>>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >>>>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >>>>>>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>>>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >>>>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>>>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>>>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>>>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >>>>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>>>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>>>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>>>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical >>>>>>>> verbiage. >>>>>> <https://www./>multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ >>>>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> >>>>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>>>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >>>>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >>>>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>>>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>>>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>>>>>>> Agitprop >>>>>>>>> sticks >>>>>>>>> in my teeth too, >>>>>>>>> and I?d rather >>>>>>>>> compose >>>>>>>>> romances for you - >>>>>>>>> more profit in it >>>>>>>>> and more charm. >>>>>>>>> But I >>>>>>>>> subdued >>>>>>>>> myself, >>>>>>>>> setting my heel >>>>>>>>> on the throat >>>>>>>>> of my own song. >>>>>>>>> Vladimir Mayakovski >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? ??? >>>>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>>>> ? ????? ?????, >>>>>>>>> ? ??? ?? >>>>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>>>> ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>>>>>>> ???????? ??? >>>>>>>>> ? ??????????. >>>>>>>>> ?? ? >>>>>>>>> ???? >>>>>>>>> ??????, >>>>>>>>> ????????? >>>>>>>>> ?? ????? >>>>>>>>> ??????????? ?????. >>>>>>>>> ???????? ?????????? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>>>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>>>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>>>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >>>>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >>>>>>>> to the concrete. >>>>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >>>>>>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>>>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>>>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>>>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>>>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>>>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>>>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>>>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>>> ????????????. >>>>>> <https://www./>academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% >>>>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . >>>>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>>>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>>>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>>>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange >>>>>>>> reason was not published then or later. >>>>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>>>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. >>>>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>>>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >>>>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >>>>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>>>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>>>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>>>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>>>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>>>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >>>>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>>>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>>>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >>>>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >>>>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>>>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>>>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >>>>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>>>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>>>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>>>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >>>>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >>>>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>>>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>>>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >>>>>>>> return to this somehow later. >>>>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>>>>>>> work of 1988: >>>>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>>>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>>>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >>>>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>>>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>>>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>>>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>>>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>>>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>>>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>>>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>>>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >>>>>> activity. >>>>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >>>>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>>>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>>>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >>>>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>>>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>>>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>>>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>>>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >>>>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>>>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>>>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>>>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>>>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >>>>>> relation.? >>>>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>>>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>>>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>>>>>>> "addressing" to another person. >>>>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>>>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >>>>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>>>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >>>>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>>>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >>>>>> Ilyenkov. >>>>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >>>>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>>>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>>>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>>>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>>>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>>>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>>>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >>>>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>>>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>>>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>>>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>>>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >>>>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>>>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>>>>>>> social relations.. " >>>>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>>>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>>>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>>>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >>>>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >>>>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>>>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>>>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >>>>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>>>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>>>>>>> solved by ourselves. >>>>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>>>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>>>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was >>>>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>>>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>>>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >>>>>>>> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas >>>>>>>> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was >>>>>>>> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other >>>>>>>> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas >>>>>>>> "Leningraders" were for "communication". >>>>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>>>>>>> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a literal >>>>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>>>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>>>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>>>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >>>>>>>> rather indecent. >>>>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>>>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>>>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>>>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >>>>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>>>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>>>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>>>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>>>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>>>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>>>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>>>>>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>>>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >>>>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>>>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>>>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters >>>>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>>>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>>>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>>>>>>> "communication" and "activity." >>>>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>>>> object oriented activity, which is an attribute property >>>>>>>> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, >>>>>>>> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we >>>>>>>> will never get life or object oriented activity even with >>>>>>>> the greatest diligence. >>>>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >>>>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>>>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>>>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>>>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>>>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >>>>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >>>>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>>>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>>>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>>>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>>>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >>>>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >>>>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>>>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>>>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>>>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my diploma >>>>>>>> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist >>>>>>>> theoretical solution to the question of the relation of >>>>>>>> objective activity and "communication". In the same time, >>>>>>>> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active >>>>>>>> relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is >>>>>>>> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, >>>>>>>> any other, psychology. >>>>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >>>>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>>>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >>>>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>>>>>>> English text >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>>>> and read it to the end :-). >>>>>>>>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >>>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>>> ????????????. >>>>>> <https://www./>academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> >>>>>>>>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short >>>>>>>> English one >>>>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ >>>>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% >>>>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% >>>>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% >>>>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% >>>>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% >>>>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. >>>>>>>>> Sasha >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > From julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk Tue Oct 17 14:35:08 2017 From: julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk (Julian Williams) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 21:35:08 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: job-CSU Sacramento In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <262AA420-C566-4810-8A1D-2B1156CDA2D7@manchester.ac.uk> Lynda Always depressed to see researchers described as 'qualitative' presumably as opposed to 'quantitative' and therefore presumed to be innumerate, instead perhaps of being illiterate. Sigh. Julian > On 17 Oct 2017, at 21:06, Stone, Lynda wrote: > > > Hello All! > > Here is a description of job opening for a qualitative researcher > grounded in human development and interested in educational settings? > > > Responsibilities include: > ? Teaching undergraduate and graduate courses in Child/Human Development, specifically courses related to qualitative research methodology and areas of interest; > ? Maintaining a rigorous program of research related to school- and/or community-based qualitative research; > ? Supervising and sponsoring student scholarship; assisting with advising and curriculum development/assessment; > ? Working collegially with other faculty; and > ? Contributing to service in the department, college, university, and profession. > > > Required Qualifications > > ? An earned Ph.D. in Child/Human Development, Applied Developmental Psychology, Developmental Psychology, Developmental Science, Education, and > Psychology, or an equivalent program. ABD candidates will be considered. If ABD, all degree requirements must be completed by August 2018 > ? Specialization in qualitative research methods with a strong emphasis in developmental theory. > > > Preferred Qualifications > > ? Demonstrated leadership potential; > ? Interpersonal skills; > ? Ability to work with children, students, families, and communities representing diverse populations from diverse backgrounds; > ? Demonstrated experience and effectiveness in college level, undergraduate, and/or graduate level teaching; > ? Clearly defined interdisciplinary program of qualitative research and publication focusing on children, adolescents, and/or young adults, or demonstrated potential for establishing such a record; > ? Experience in educational settings and/or curriculum development. > > > > > > > > > Lynda Stone, Ph.D. > Professor > Child Development > CSUS/UC-Links After-school Program Director > From julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk Tue Oct 17 15:03:20 2017 From: julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk (Julian Williams) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 22:03:20 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] =?utf-8?b?RndkOiAg0J7RgtCyOiAgUmU6INCe0YLQsjogUmU6IE9iamVjdCBv?= =?utf-8?q?riented_activity_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <49BC6E1396C8F94B92715533ED4D20DC664DD15F@MBXP01.ds.man.ac.uk> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net>, <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com>, <49BC6E1396C8F94B92715533ED4D20DC664DD15F@MBXP01.ds.man.ac.uk> Message-ID: <7D458EBB-2A42-49A2-B5B4-AB7DB3A35789@manchester.ac.uk> > Dear sasha and all > > How interesting and appropriate that in 2017, nearly ten years after the economic collapse and presumably on the verge of the next one, we are discussing the significance of the commodity in Das Kap (DK). > > And yet, it feels a little bit like a theological discussion: 'is the commodity a unit?' of something or not. > > I think reading DK (chapter 1) that it should be clear what is going on there - the production of commodities arises in pre-capitalist societies (even in simple, often subsistence societies some marketisation of the surplus is key, even when this was not the motivation of production) but becomes the dominant factor/motive (production for a market) and eventually leads to 'capitalism' as Marx sees it, where C-M-C has now become dominated by M-C-M' and the world of finance, when (M' - M) rules the world.... > > It is this transformation of the commodity from an object of exchange to the object of production and a medium for accumulation, and the political-economic dominance of the latter that is at stake in DK. So the 'commodity' for Marx was the 'unit- concept' for understanding the emergence of capitalism. (Did he ever refer to it as a unit? I don't recall..). > > This analysis all leads to the particular, productive concept of 'surplus value' (in the labour theory of value), which Marx regarded as his only particularly distinctive, original concept (i.e. how to explain M' - M in the production process in terms of the labour theory of value: capital steals the value of labour in production, 'exploitation' in a new form). > > Now - we seem to be engaged in some sort of theological discussion 'where/what is the 'unit' of capital?' ... But I think we need to consider what is our question, what are we trying now to explain? i.e. How did we come to this question about 'what is the unit?' and why? > > Maybe my problem here is that I've lost the 'plot'`; what problem are we trying to explain/elucidate here? I sense criticism of Vygotsky's attempts to identify units like the commodity - e.g. 'word-meaning', and 'perezhivanie'. Fair enough: maybe even the 'unit' of commodity that we would like to emulate is not generalisable. > > Isn't the question 'what is the unit?' An instrumentalist ion of the big question 'what is the problem?' We are addressing? (Note that the Media can't cope here with punctuating three questions in one sentence - sorry.) > > Julian > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Alexander Surmava [alexander.surmava@yahoo.com] > Sent: 16 October 2017 16:00 > To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Alfredo Jornet Gil; Mike Cole; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Ivan Uemlianin; Martin John Packer > Subject: [Xmca-l] ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication > > Dear colleagues, > Excuse me for the delay in responding to your previous posts about Leontiev and Vygotsky. The problems that we are discussing are so serious that it takes a long time to think about them and formulate an answer. Especially in English :-). > Therefore, the main answer I hope to put on the XMCA no earlier than tomorrow. > But suddenly the discussion turned into an extremely interesting side. I mean analysis of the logic of "Das Kapital". It is discussed what can and should be properly considered the unit of analysis of both Capital and ?Das Kapital?, the world system of capitalism and its reflection in Marx? theoretic masterpiece. At least two hypotheses have been voiced. The first is that such a unit is a separate " business", a capitalist firm. And the second, that the unit of analysis is the exchange of goods. > I think that I can hardly agree with both hypotheses.It seems to me that for Marx the first, most abstract stage of analysis is in no case the exchange of goods, but the commodity itself. And not an abstract commodity, but a commodity produced under capitalistic relations. Therefore, the unit of analysis is strictly speaking the very production of such a commodity. > The exchange of goods occurs not only under capitalism, but also under slavery, and under feudalism. This is not an independent, not substantial concept. The exchange depends on the mode of production, and not vice versa. > The same can be applied to "communication" in psychology, to the "exchange" of ideas, caresses or beatings. This communication does not occur due to certain immanent laws of interpersonal communication, but entirely depends on the collaborative object-oriented activity (predmetnoy deyatelnosty), collective labor of historically determined individuals. In turn, the nature of their collective work, depends not on the distribution of genes in their genomes, but on the distribution of the means of production, on the distribution of labor instruments. Let us emphasize, not on the distribution of verbal signs, not on ideology, but on the distribution of the most material weapons of human activity. > With communist greetings :-) , Sasha > P.S. By the way, I enthusiastically welcome the fact that our discussion has switched from discussing Vygotsky's "units" to discussing the most abstract category of "Das Kapital" of Marx, that is, from a pale copy, to the original. By the way, in the future it might be interesting to re-read the "Dialectics of the abstract and concrete in scientific and theoretical thinking" by EV Ilyenkov. This work contains an elaborate analysis of the method of Marx, in comparison with which Vygotsky's methodological reflexion seems to be something quite student-like. > > > ??: Andy Blunden > ????: Alfredo Jornet Gil ; "xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu" > ??????????: ???????????, 16 ??????? 2017 15:51 > ????: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication > > Capitals are units of capital. The only whole is the world > market, within which units of capital grow and shrink, > consume one another and so on. A capital (i.e. a firm) is > not a "whole" in the true sense of the word, and I would > have an issue with anyone who wants to treat a firm as a > "system of activity" if there were any implication that this > means a "closed system." > > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 16/10/2017 11:42 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >> >> Your point in the first paragraph is what I was trying to >> convey to Haidy, to see if there is room there for common >> ground between your positions. ? >> >> Alfredo >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Andy Blunden >> *Sent:* 16 October 2017 14:39 >> *To:* Alfredo Jornet Gil; xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >> *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented >> activity and communication >> >> >> Yes, yes, Alfredo! But what is often overlooked is that >> the aim of Marx's research is not commodity exchange (in >> itself a harmless business) but capital. But he does not >> *start* with capital, but goes down to its roots, its >> source, in the circulation of commodities. >> >> Compare with Vygotsky's analysis of the intellect >> (thinking). Word meanings are *not* the subject matter of >> Vygotsky's research (who gives a damn!?), but concepts! >> But he does not start with concepts, but goes down to its >> roots, its source, in speech arising in collaborative >> activity. Actually, AN Leontyev missed this, as can be >> seen in his trenchant attack on Vygotsky in his ?Study of >> the Environment in the Pedological Works of L. S. Vygotsky". >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 16/10/2017 11:31 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>> Damn! Commodity exchange is the unit of burgeons society... I have to study more! Thanks Andy >>> >>> "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as ?an immense accumulation of commodities,?[1] its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity" >>> >>> Alfredo >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden >>> Sent: 16 October 2017 14:22 >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >>> >>> Just to illustrate that I am being an orthodox Marxist here, >>> from Chapter 10, Vol. 3 of Capital: >>> >>> "In the case of capitals of average, or approximately >>> average, composition, the price of production is thus >>> the same or almost the same as the value, and the profit >>> the same as the surplus-value produced by them. All >>> other capitals, of whatever composition, tend toward >>> this average under pressure of competition. But since >>> the capitals of average composition are of the same, or >>> approximately the same, structure as the average social >>> capital, all capitals have the tendency, regardless of >>> the surplus-value produced by them, to realize the >>> average profit, rather than their own surplus-value in >>> the price of their commodity, i.e., to realize the >>> prices of production." >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> On 16/10/2017 11:18 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >>>> No, Alfredo. A unit of capital is a firm (or company). It is >>>> impossible to explain the formation of a rate of profit (at >>>> least as Marx does in /Capital/) without the conception of >>>> units of capital, namely, firms and the competition between >>>> them. Firms are of course, what Engestrom would call a >>>> "system of activity" or I would call a "project" and >>>> Leontyev almost could call an activity. But in the USSR >>>> there were no firms, only the state. It is perhaps A N >>>> Leonytev's greatest discovery that there are both micro and >>>> molar units in any complex process. True in Psychology and >>>> true in political economy. Whereas exchange of commodities >>>> is an artefact-mediated action, a firm is an activity, a >>>> specific aggregate of actions, directed towards the >>>> quantitative maximisation of the value of the unit of capital. >>>> >>>> English is not a perfect language either. : ) The word >>>> "consciousness" has the unfortunate connotation of being a >>>> mass noun (or continuous substance) whereas it is know only, >>>> of course, in individual "consciousnesses" or "minds." But >>>> it sounds so clumsy to say "a consciousness." >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>> On 16/10/2017 11:07 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>>>> Haydi, >>>>> >>>>> I think Andy does not mean 'one capital' versus 'several capitals', for, if I read Andy adequately, Capital is for him not a unit but rather the whole of which commodity exchange is the unit. Thus, the germ cell of Capital is thus not Capital, or 'a' Capital, which you seem to attribute to Andy; just as I don't think he is arguing that there is consciousness, and then many consciousnesses. So it may be that you two agree more than disagree, judging by your last paragraph. >>>>> >>>>> Whether his position on singular and plurals is more or less adequate than another positions, that I leave it up to the discussion. >>>>> >>>>> Alfredo >>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? >>>>> Sent: 16 October 2017 09:45 >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Andy Blunden >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >>>>> >>>>> Thank you David for your explanation! Though for me it needs more than one read. >>>>> >>>>> The point was whether use of activity and activities in Leontiev is a contradiction. Whoever L was and whatever he believed in , he was not so negligent to the point of posing activity first and immediately after that recounting 'activities'. Translation ruled out a committed error. Then such a blundering display must have a justification rather than a misunderstanding in comprehension. >>>>> >>>>> In one sense all things are related. The more so with the Monistic View. We have so many corporate and incorporate things , two of them so problematic communication and practical activity since Descartes and we are determined to avoid Dualism and refer and return all phenomena to that same thing , the one substance. In the actuality of the world , there's nothing discrete , that is , absolutely unrelated. Is that pretext for us not to see this unbounded versatility and hues and dues as distinct coloring? Maybe one of the ways was for man to let Nature go unrestrained?? But man also did not come of its own will. >>>>> >>>>> The sole way destined or open to Man was of its Nature to engage with the surrounding. To deal with it sensually and subjectively/agently. Then Man in one time interpreted all phenomena as they appeared to him. But he grew up further than his infantile period. He learnt to delve into matters , go deeper and deeper. With one spectacle (plane) he observed how that single substance let its attributes multiply themselves into different shapes and colors and Modes. With another plane of the one spectacle observed the variation of the Modes themselves. I mean Ontology and Epistemology not yet separate from each other as I used a pair of planes for that matter. >>>>> >>>>> Then we usually don't use a nail-clipper for alterations and manipulations in Genes. Or devices for Genes for our feeding and nutrition. It is then within these constraints that corporate and incorporate phenomena differ. Singles and plurals differ. Discrete and the indivisible differ. Parts and Moments differ. Wholes and mere entities differ. A process and a product resulting from that process differ. No justification to interchange them because of the use of A in front of them. >>>>> >>>>> I wonder if this is true for others too. For me it's difficult to accept to say "this capital that capital" "those 8 capitals united" "capitals of the world dissolved into unanimity". If I'm correct in this , it's , I think , because Capital is a Whole , coming out of a long process of functions and disfunctions , moments of circulations and transient stagnation , booms and boosts and drawbacks and failures. The moment of its conception in the exchange of commodities up to the discovery of the private appropriation of the surplus value to the point of harnessing every means to penetrate each tight corner of the big World. >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> Haydi >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: David Kellogg >>>>> To: Andy Blunden ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >>>>> Sent: Monday, 16 October 2017, 2:21:12 >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >>>>> >>>>> Of course, neither an object nor a process is discrete (or even, as Andy >>>>> says, "discreet"). Who can tell me where a mountain river ends and the >>>>> alluvial plain begins? Certainly not Cezanne or the phenomenologists who so >>>>> loved him. Yet a mountain is most assuredly an object, just as surely >>>>> as climbing the mountain to ascertain its degree of montagnitude is a >>>>> process. >>>>> >>>>> This last week I've been struggling through the "Curriculum Reforms" >>>>> wrought by three right wing governments in Norway, Finland, and New >>>>> Zealand. Like Catalonia, these are all countries where unpopular coalitions >>>>> of right parties are replacing a much more popular but obviously >>>>> unsuccessful social democratic coalition of left parties. In Norway and in >>>>> Finland, the coalition actually includes the far right, neo-fascist, >>>>> anti-immigrant parties, and in New Zealand it includes the ACT, that is, an >>>>> "association of consumers and taxpayers" whose main interest is cutting >>>>> education budgets, starting by making teachers and students fight each >>>>> other for scarce resources in the form of "block grants". >>>>> >>>>> Now, all of these governments are more or less bound by something called >>>>> DeSeCo, which is short for Describe and Select Competences. This is because >>>>> right-wing ideology sees education not as a public good but as a commodity, >>>>> to be judged by tangible results and priced accordingly. This presents a >>>>> real theoretical problem for right-wingers, because they ALSO see that >>>>> "flexible labor markets" and "entrepreneurial spirit" means that there >>>>> isn't any way of deciding on what skills or even what knowledge the >>>>> "economy of the future" will demand. >>>>> >>>>> We can see this in the emphasis on "competence". Competence is not a thing >>>>> or a process, and it is neither discrete nor discreet. Of course, if you >>>>> are a linguist, competence is something Chomsky thought of in the sixties, >>>>> an abstract form of knowledge in a hypothetical native speaker-hearer in an >>>>> imaginary homogenous speech community. It is "discrete" in the sense of >>>>> being nowhere and nowhen connectible to performance in any way. It is >>>>> therefore "discreet" in the sense of being untestable--as soon as you test >>>>> it, you have a form of performance, not competence. It's like standing in >>>>> front of a classroom with a picture of a guy swimming and trying to teach >>>>> the expression "i can swim". What you have in the picture is not "I can >>>>> swim"; it's manifestly "he is swimming". >>>>> >>>>> But in DeSeCo, you get these lists of competences, which are set up as if >>>>> they were discrete so you can list them on a Powerpoint slide and sell them >>>>> to ministries of education. And the real selling point is that, on the one >>>>> hand, because they are all "meta-skills" and "meta-knowledges", they don't >>>>> have any practical outcome or real commitment to a job and a livelihood. >>>>> And on the other, they sound terribly powerful when you phrase them as >>>>> "learning to learn" or "transversal competence" or "meta-cognitive skills" >>>>> or something like that. Jobs, in other words, are discretionary. After >>>>> centuries of promising jobs and livelhood in return for school and boredom, >>>>> the Western economies have decided that sticks are cheaper than carrots, >>>>> and the thing to do is simply to rule people who don't have educational >>>>> certificates out of the job market rather than try to provide >>>>> actual know-how and factual know-that. >>>>> >>>>> Here are my four favorites (i.e. the four that we stress in our own >>>>> curricular reform here in South Korea): >>>>> >>>>> interpersonal competence (sociability, the ability to 'be alone with >>>>> others' as Hughlings Jackson put it) >>>>> cultural competence (enculturation, the ability to understand traditions, >>>>> mores, and norms) >>>>> creative competence (intelligence, innovation, yadda yadda) >>>>> individual competence (the ability to dress yourself, feed yourself, and >>>>> show up for an interview where you will not be offered a job) >>>>> >>>>> Vygotsky, as usual, has a better idea--it's a mountain. We just turn the >>>>> DeSeCO PPT upside down. Then we add each competence---freedom, creative >>>>> intelligence, encultured habits and tastes, and instiinctive >>>>> sociability--as a superstructure erected on the basis of the previous one: >>>>> >>>>> free will (the ability to make choices that are not necessarily intelligent >>>>> or habitual or instinctive) >>>>> intelligence (the ability to make choices that are not habitual or >>>>> instinctive but nevertheless adaptive) >>>>> enculturation (the ability to make choices that are not instinctive but >>>>> conform to the choices that have proven successful in the now socialized >>>>> environment) >>>>> instinct (the ability to make choices that are responsive to the >>>>> environment and which conform to the choices that have proven successful in >>>>> phylogenesis) >>>>> >>>>> Are theses objects? Of course, if we say so. And processes? Well, how else >>>>> could they have come about? What they are not, however, is either >>>>> "discrete" or "discreet": they are clearly linked to each other, and they >>>>> are all linked, through the lower layer, to adaptations ot the environment. >>>>> >>>>> And there's the rub--where the rubber meets the road. The real question, >>>>> for our teachers and for our children, is about what will happen to them >>>>> now that these competences can no longer be redeemed in jobs. Will the >>>>> anti-Faustian bargain of exchanging your youth for a >>>>> stable middle-aged livelihood survive? >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Haydi, you say "AN activity is not a thing ; it's a >>>>>> process." I wonder then what is a thing which is not also a >>>>>> process? (I interpret "thing" as meaning "something >>>>>> discrete," otherwise your objection makes no sense.) The >>>>>> point is that Hegel does not make this dichotomy - every >>>>>> thing is also a process and vice versa. That a process is >>>>>> also discreet is important because it is only thanks to its >>>>>> discreteness that we can cognise the process and in fact >>>>>> only thanks to its discreteness that a process can affect >>>>>> anything else. To speak of processes which are not also >>>>>> discrete is to speak in abstractions. >>>>>> >>>>>> On this point, when Hegel puts ideas above matter, it has to >>>>>> be realised that for Hegel "ideas" are social practices - he >>>>>> is simply place human practice at the centre of human life >>>>>> and its comprehension, rather than the mechanical and >>>>>> chemical processes of Nature. If you think that "ideas" are >>>>>> simply chimera inside our heads, then, of course, Hegel's >>>>>> idealism seems like madness. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, all the Marxists have blasted Hegel. As they must. >>>>>> Otherwise they must end up advocates of Constitutional >>>>>> Monarchy. But while Marx uses almost every mention he makes >>>>>> of Hegel to criticise him, often in extreme terms, it can go >>>>>> unnoticed the extent to which in practice Marx follows Hegel >>>>>> in philosophy. Of course Marx is not equal to Hegel, but >>>>>> simple formulae do not contribute to understanding the relation. >>>>>> >>>>>> Andy >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>> On 15/10/2017 6:51 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: >>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let me first apologize to David Kellog because in others' >>>>>>> wandering and perplexity it was he who in his reading of >>>>>>> Gramsci's prison letters came across this point and made >>>>>>> you not only accept the inappropriateness of Hegel's >>>>>>> headstand as Crowning every worldly affair deriving from >>>>>>> the People's Heads "Idea" , "Absolute" but also >>>>>>> intensifying this point with more examples and references >>>>>>> from Engels' "utopian versus genuine socialism" on your >>>>>>> part. Of course you've been helping us on many occasions >>>>>>> and you're very welcome for this nothing to be denied. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At this point we have no problem with translation. >>>>>>> Leontiev meant it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Suppose that ANL does not know "individual" which is very >>>>>>> ambiguous because in what then one should seek the >>>>>>> embodiment of the "particular" and if one takes the very >>>>>>> particular as individual , then everything gets mixed up . >>>>>>> Then what about you who stick firmly on individual >>>>>>> discrete detached activities as an objection to Sasha's >>>>>>> sole ACTIVITY as theoretical understanding. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As you well know even AN activity is not a thing ; it's a >>>>>>> process. And you once distinguished between GENERAL WORK >>>>>>> ACTIVITY and LABOUR ACTIVITY or VALORIZATION ACTIVITY >>>>>>> which was quite right and timely though you recently gave >>>>>>> differing definitions in no way harmonious to your >>>>>>> previous definitions. But the main problem is blending >>>>>>> clarity in expression with concrete in theory. No doubt >>>>>>> you're a Fan of Hegel. I should repeat myself : Hegel is a >>>>>>> hero of theoretical concepts. In theorizing , and for him >>>>>>> to explicate the Essence of Phenomena , he begins with >>>>>>> apparently concrete things as ABSTRACTS finally reaches >>>>>>> CONCRETE UNIVERSALS as concepts. And here we again very >>>>>>> surprisingly see you put your finger upon what you should >>>>>>> have known in person is contrary to your own erudition. >>>>>>> Turning Hegel down as believing in discrete abstracts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And now to his son's comment : What individual are you >>>>>>> pursuing? Your Hegel sees phenomena in their relations. >>>>>>> According to him and also according to ANL ACTIVITY as a >>>>>>> unit of Life is Molar non-additive. He even does not see >>>>>>> operations as single acts. It's a matter of the angle of >>>>>>> vision not detachment and concreteness. If his son had >>>>>>> talked of concreteness in moments of activity , then you >>>>>>> were right in your objections and oppositions. You please >>>>>>> give us your last definition of activity here (not in >>>>>>> lengthy references) so that we can have a discerning >>>>>>> option. >>>>>>> So far to remove the problem we should accept operations >>>>>>> are separately and independently carried out ; actions in >>>>>>> their own are carried out ; activities are carried out >>>>>>> arbitrarily. And these are done to the realization of man >>>>>>> as the ensemble of social relations based on some >>>>>>> infrastructure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hegel's metaphor has been thrown back at him by Marx , >>>>>>> Engels , Lenin , Vygotsky , Ilyenko , and many others. If >>>>>>> you like to stand above all Giants of Marxism , it's >>>>>>> something perfectly and absolutely Personal as you're >>>>>>> speaking out loud! Then why give us so many references. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Haydi >>>>>>> >>>>>>> P.S. Alfredo! Though you have my previous private response >>>>>>> concerning the matters you pose I see myself accountable >>>>>>> to rewrite them to the Public. Thanks! >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> *From:* Andy Blunden >>>>>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, 15 October 2017, 5:35:40 >>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity >>>>>>> and communication >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Haydi, partly the problem with ANL's >>>>>>> philosophy-as-we-know-it is simply a product of its >>>>>>> translation into English. But partly it is also in his >>>>>>> philosophy. As Victor Kaptelinin first pointed out (so far >>>>>>> as I know), ANL knows the universal and the particular but >>>>>>> he does not know the individual. And his son's comment that >>>>>>> ANL did not conceive of Activity as being discrete proves >>>>>>> this to be the case. Thus his concept of Activity is not a >>>>>>> fully concrete concept. And this is not a product of >>>>>>> translation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As David Kellogg has kindly pointed out to me, it was Hegel >>>>>>> who actually first introduced this metaphor of people >>>>>>> "walking (or standing) on their heads." Personally, I don't >>>>>>> think it has ever helped anyone understand the defect of >>>>>>> Hegel's philosophy to throw this metaphor back at him. As >>>>>>> demonstrated in this issue (the concept of activity) it was >>>>>>> Hegel who understood that a concept must have all three >>>>>>> moments - universal, particular and individual. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>> On 15/10/2017 9:24 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: >>>>>>>> Dear Mike, >>>>>>>> Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an >>>>>>> activist for his concreteness and clarifications is >>>>>>> crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot >>>>>>> ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes , Parts , >>>>>>> and Moments. He personally provided us with examples from >>>>>>> Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they convert >>>>>>> Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced with the >>>>>>> same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most >>>>>>> valuable contribution) does not begin with the individual >>>>>>> case in isolation which phenomenologically speaking (in >>>>>>> contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for >>>>>>> appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not obtained >>>>>>> because one instance is considered detached from all >>>>>>> relations and its subservience to the service of the >>>>>>> Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is particular in >>>>>>> some feature/s. And these particulars are essential. With >>>>>>> other particulars in other individuals they are related >>>>>>> actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense , this whole >>>>>>> could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life itself. >>>>>>> Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is , >>>>>>> with category and concept only therefore , following Marx >>>>>>> and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again on his >>>>>>> feet (not that the firmament to that time did put "idea" >>>>>>> on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on their >>>>>>> heads but to put them again headstand thinking and acting >>>>>>> with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just >>>>>>> with their brains. Then taking all options in translation >>>>>>> even that of a Machine into consideration it does not seem >>>>>>> to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of >>>>>>> Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of >>>>>>> activities thereafter. These activities are those arising >>>>>>> from the properties of versatile objects in turn arising >>>>>>> from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile >>>>>>> needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think >>>>>>> Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual >>>>>>> activities as moments with the broadest idea of the >>>>>>> Monistic Substantial Modes or States in Philosophical >>>>>>> terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn integrate and >>>>>>> are dissolved into Monism of Substance. >>>>>>>> Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche >>>>>>> (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one >>>>>>> Substance) is already there with the organism actively and >>>>>>> spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own , >>>>>>> positioning its due object and moving along its contours >>>>>>> and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to itself >>>>>>> , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and >>>>>>> bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as >>>>>>> novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with >>>>>>> Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with a huge >>>>>>> gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of >>>>>>> consciousness , now apparently ascending to "wording" and >>>>>>> "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration) further >>>>>>> "communication" as something indispensable and necessary >>>>>>> and inevitable to the realization of life affairs. >>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>> Haydi >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: mike cole >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> To: Andy Blunden >>>>>> >; "eXtended Mind, Culture, >>>>>>> Activity" >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Cc: Alexander Surmava >>>>>> >; ivan-dgf >>>>>>> >; Ivan >>>>>>> Uemlianin >; >>>>>>> Haydi Zulfei >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50 >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented >>>>>>> activity and communication >>>>>>>> Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.Could someone post >>>>>>> the Russian text next to the English so that it is >>>>>>> possible to compare it with the translation? I spent >>>>>>> several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of >>>>>>> Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally defeated >>>>>>> me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra rubles in >>>>>>> my pocket. >>>>>>>> Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us >>>>>>> a "true" translation. >>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> The Progress Publishers English translation of "Activity and >>>>>>>> Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of >>>>>>>> Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, >>>>>>>> material life of the material subject. In the narrower >>>>>>>> sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a unit of >>>>>>>> life, mediated by mental reflection, by >>>>>>>> an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the >>>>>>>> subject in the objective world. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The >>>>>>>> Development of Mind" we have: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an >>>>>>>> organism?s activity; the different activities that realise >>>>>>>> its diverse vital relations with the surrounding reality are >>>>>>>> essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore >>>>>>>> differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively >>>>>>>> different] types of activity according to the difference in >>>>>>>> their objects. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses >>>>>>>> "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has >>>>>>>> been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for >>>>>>>> English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean simply >>>>>>>> "category." The second does the same, but in addition makes >>>>>>>> it evident that the plural does not refer to different >>>>>>>> activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the >>>>>>>> possibility of forming a true concept of activity >>>>>>> altogether. >>>>>>>> With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is >>>>>>>> simply that "such an initial *category* can only be >>>>>>>> object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing >>>>>>>> that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, >>>>>>>> even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics. >>>>>>> org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>> On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: >>>>>>>>> Dear Andy! >>>>>>>>> I am glad that our communication was resumed after many >>>>>>>>> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and files >>>>>>>>> and found that the problem of "object oriented activity OR >>>>>>>>> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before >>>>>>>>> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is serious and >>>>>>>>> it deserves to return to it today. >>>>>>>>> Last year I was close to being silent forever. >>>>>>>>> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed >>>>>>>>> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the >>>>>>>>> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my >>>>>>>>> theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my >>>>>>>>> descendants :-). >>>>>>>>> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not >>>>>>>>> understand your question. What means the distinction >>>>>>>>> between singular and plural number in your remark? Could >>>>>>>>> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the >>>>>>>>> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my >>>>>>>>> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, >>>>>>>>> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of >>>>>>>>> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my dissertation >>>>>>>>> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's "Theory of >>>>>>>>> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, >>>>>>>>> having understood the theoretic meaning of your claims to >>>>>>>>> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily >>>>>>>>> understand the essence of your objections to me. >>>>>>>>> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I >>>>>>>>> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a >>>>>>>>> particular empirical case of its manifestation. Therefore, >>>>>>>>> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just like >>>>>>>>> Matter, Nature, or Substance. >>>>>>>>> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come across >>>>>>>>> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its >>>>>>>>> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the >>>>>>>>> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old >>>>>>>>> philosophers and that only the numerous individual "atomic >>>>>>>>> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really >>>>>>>>> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar >>>>>>>>> positivism and empiricism. >>>>>>>>> However, all of this may not apply to your position ... >>>>>>>>> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. >>>>>>>>> Best wishes >>>>>>>>> Sasha >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>> > ?????(?): >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'll ask Sasha a question. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial >>>>>>>>> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it >>>>>>> stands, >>>>>>>>> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be >>>>>>> that you >>>>>>>>> are translating it from a Russian statement that is >>>>>>> correct. >>>>>>>>> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in when I >>>>>>>>> say "every activity has an object." But in your expression >>>>>>>>> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and >>>>>>> unless >>>>>>>>> you are a religious person is not something which can >>>>>>> have a >>>>>>>>> specific object. All English translations of A N Leontyev >>>>>>>>> make this mistake which has caused no end of confusion >>>>>>> among >>>>>>>>> English-speakers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," just as >>>>>>>>> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics. >>>>>>> org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Dear Sasha, all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding >>>>>>>>> response. I think you are right in your assertion that we >>>>>>>>> are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of >>>>>>>>> CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. However, one >>>>>>>>> can see in the lack of response by other members?? that >>>>>>>>> not everyone has the privilege of the time it requires to >>>>>>>>> go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing >>>>>>>>> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce and I >>>>>>>>> hope it is/will be appreciated as such. >>>>>>>>>> If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I quote >>>>>>>>> from your response: >>>>>>>>>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>>>>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>>>>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>>>>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" >>>>>>>>>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework >>>>>>>>> according to which we are looking of the most original >>>>>>>>> germ cell, the one from which all others can be >>>>>>>>> developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I >>>>>>>>> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree on >>>>>>> that. >>>>>>>>>> But ??once we are back to the development of a concrete >>>>>>>>> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact that, for >>>>>>>>> any child to participate in human forms of object-oriented >>>>>>>>> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented >>>>>>>>> activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular >>>>>>>>> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into those >>>>>>>>> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category >>>>>>>>> devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with >>>>>>>>> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you describe, is >>>>>>>>> this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, or is >>>>>>>>> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? >>>>>>>>>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others answer >>>>>>>>> (which I hope some do). >>>>>>>>>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in >>>>>>>>> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of teaching >>>>>>>>> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this >>>>>>>>> is only possible through *involvement* in collective >>>>>>>>> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary >>>>>>>>> over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is >>>>>>>>> only possible in and through object-oriented activity). >>>>>>>>> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional aspect of >>>>>>>>> the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to >>>>>>>>> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this >>>>>>>>> object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all >>>>>>>>> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually >>>>>>>>> uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such >>>>>>>>> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get >>>>>>>>> collective activity without them? On this, and precisely >>>>>>>>> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of Man", >>>>>>>>> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in that >>>>>>>>> case that communication is included in activity and is its >>>>>>>>> essential component: without relation to another >>>>>>>>> person(s), activity is impossible' (144). Although I not >>>>>>>>> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I can't >>>>>>>>> see how he can be wrong. >>>>>>>>>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of >>>>>>>>> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the >>>>>>>>> category of object-oriented activity, is most primary. Let >>>>>>>>> me also note that ?there are other authors who have >>>>>>>>> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you >>>>>>>>> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on >>>>>>>>> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom >>>>>>>>> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of auto-affection' ( >>>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/ Incarnation-Philosophy- >>>>>>> Studies-Phenomenology- Existential/dp/0810131269 >>>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>>>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I wonder >>>>>>>>> whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity >>>>>>>>> and communication. Is not the distinction just an artefact >>>>>>>>> of a partial understanding of what it means activity and >>>>>>>>> what it means communicating. I still feel that >>>>>>>>> communication, in the sense of addressivity that Mikhailov >>>>>>>>> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for >>>>>>>>> semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity >>>>>>>>> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't >>>>>>>>> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps >>>>>>>>> naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication >>>>>>>>> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in >>>>>>>>> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I >>>>>>>>> don't see how any practical activity can have any sense >>>>>>>>> (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. >>>>>>>>> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are >>>>>>>>> talking about; one machines could perform on their own >>>>>>>>> without consciousness. ? >>>>>>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ______________________________ __ >>>>>>>>>> From: Alexander Surmava >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 >>>>>>>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> edu>; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo >>>>>>>>> Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>>>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >>>>>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>>>>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >>>>>>>>> aside) :-) >>>>>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>>>>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >>>>>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >>>>>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>>>>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>>>>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >>>>>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>>>>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>>>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >>>>>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >>>>>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >>>>>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>>>>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>>>>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>>>>>>>> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>>>>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >>>>>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >>>>>>>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>>>>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >>>>>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>>>>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>>>>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>>>>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >>>>>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>>>>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>>>>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>>>>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical >>>>>>>>> verbiage>>>>>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ >>>>>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> >>>>>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>>>>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >>>>>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>>>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >>>>>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>>>>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>>>>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>>>>>>>> Agitprop >>>>>>>>>> sticks >>>>>>>>>> in my teeth too, >>>>>>>>>> and I?d rather >>>>>>>>>> compose >>>>>>>>>> romances for you - >>>>>>>>>> more profit in it >>>>>>>>>> and more charm. >>>>>>>>>> But I >>>>>>>>>> subdued >>>>>>>>>> myself, >>>>>>>>>> setting my heel >>>>>>>>>> on the throat >>>>>>>>>> of my own song. >>>>>>>>>> Vladimir Mayakovski >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ? ??? >>>>>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>>>>> ? ????? ?????, >>>>>>>>>> ? ??? ?? >>>>>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>>>>> ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>>>>>>>> ???????? ??? >>>>>>>>>> ? ??????????. >>>>>>>>>> ?? ? >>>>>>>>>> ???? >>>>>>>>>> ??????, >>>>>>>>>> ????????? >>>>>>>>>> ?? ????? >>>>>>>>>> ??????????? ?????. >>>>>>>>>> ???????? ?????????? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>>>>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>>>>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>>>>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >>>>>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >>>>>>>>> to the concrete. >>>>>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >>>>>>>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>>>>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>>>>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>>>>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>>>>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>>>>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>>>>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>>>>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>>>> ????????????>>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% >>>>>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . >>>>>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>>>>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>>>>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>>>>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange >>>>>>>>> reason was not published then or later. >>>>>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>>>>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. >>>>>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>>>>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >>>>>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >>>>>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>>>>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>>>>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>>>>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>>>>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>>>>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >>>>>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>>>>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>>>>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >>>>>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >>>>>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>>>>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>>>>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >>>>>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>>>>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>>>>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>>>>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >>>>>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >>>>>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>>>>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>>>>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >>>>>>>>> return to this somehow later. >>>>>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>>>>>>>> work of 1988: >>>>>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>>>>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>>>>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >>>>>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>>>>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>>>>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>>>>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>>>>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>>>>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>>>>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>>>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>>>>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>>>>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >>>>>>> activity. >>>>>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >>>>>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>>>>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>>>>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >>>>>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>>>>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>>>>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>>>>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>>>>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >>>>>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>>>>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>>>>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>>>>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>>>>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >>>>>>> relation.? >>>>>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>>>>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>>>>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>>>>>>>> "addressing" to another person. >>>>>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>>>>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >>>>>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>>>>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >>>>>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>>>>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >>>>>>> Ilyenkov. >>>>>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >>>>>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>>>>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>>>>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>>>>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>>>>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>>>>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>>>>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >>>>>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>>>>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>>>>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>>>>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>>>>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >>>>>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>>>>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>>>>>>>> social relations.. " >>>>>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>>>>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>>>>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>>>>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >>>>>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >>>>>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>>>>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>>>>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >>>>>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>>>>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>>>>>>>> solved by ourselves. >>>>>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>>>>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>>>>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was AN >>>>>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>>>>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>>>>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >>>>>>>>> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of >>>>>>>>> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was inclined to >>>>>>>>> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, >>>>>>>>> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" >>>>>>>>> were for communication. >>>>>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>>>>>>>> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal >>>>>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>>>>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>>>>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>>>>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >>>>>>>>> rather indecent. >>>>>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>>>>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>>>>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>>>>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >>>>>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>>>>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>>>>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>>>>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>>>>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>>>>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>>>>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>>>>>>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>>>>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >>>>>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>>>>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>>>>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters >>>>>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>>>>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>>>>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>>>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>>>>>>>> "communication" and "activity." >>>>>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>>>>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>>>>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>>>>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. >>>>>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >>>>>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>>>>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>>>>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>>>>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>>>>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >>>>>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >>>>>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>>>>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>>>>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>>>>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>>>>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>>>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >>>>>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >>>>>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>>>>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>>>>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>>>>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>>>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my >>>>>>>>> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a >>>>>>>>> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the >>>>>>>>> relation of objective activity and "communication". In the >>>>>>>>> same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, >>>>>>>>> the active relation of the subject to the object and to >>>>>>>>> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, >>>>>>>>> indeed, any other, psychology. >>>>>>>>>> ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????, >>>>>>>>> ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, >>>>>>>>> ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, >>>>>>>>> ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? >>>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>>>>> ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. >>>>>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >>>>>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>>>>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >>>>>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>>>>>>>> English text >>>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>>>>> and read it to the end :-). >>>>>>>>>> ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >>>>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>>>> ????????????>>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> >>>>>>>>>> ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? >>>>>>>>> ??????????? ???????? >>>>>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ >>>>>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% >>>>>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% >>>>>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% >>>>>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% >>>>>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% >>>>>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 >>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>>>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >>>>>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>>>>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >>>>>>>>> aside) :-) >>>>>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>>>>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >>>>>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >>>>>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>>>>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>>>>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >>>>>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>>>>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>>>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >>>>>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >>>>>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >>>>>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>>>>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>>>>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>>>>>>>> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>>>>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >>>>>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >>>>>>>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>>>>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >>>>>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>>>>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>>>>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>>>>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >>>>>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>>>>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>>>>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>>>>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical >>>>>>>>> verbiage>>>>>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ >>>>>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> >>>>>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>>>>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >>>>>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>>>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >>>>>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>>>>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>>>>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>>>>>>>> Agitprop >>>>>>>>>> sticks >>>>>>>>>> in my teeth too, >>>>>>>>>> and I?d rather >>>>>>>>>> compose >>>>>>>>>> romances for you - >>>>>>>>>> more profit in it >>>>>>>>>> and more charm. >>>>>>>>>> But I >>>>>>>>>> subdued >>>>>>>>>> myself, >>>>>>>>>> setting my heel >>>>>>>>>> on the throat >>>>>>>>>> of my own song. >>>>>>>>>> Vladimir Mayakovski >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ? ??? >>>>>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>>>>> ? ????? ?????, >>>>>>>>>> ? ??? ?? >>>>>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>>>>> ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>>>>>>>> ???????? ??? >>>>>>>>>> ? ??????????. >>>>>>>>>> ?? ? >>>>>>>>>> ???? >>>>>>>>>> ??????, >>>>>>>>>> ????????? >>>>>>>>>> ?? ????? >>>>>>>>>> ??????????? ?????. >>>>>>>>>> ???????? ?????????? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>>>>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>>>>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>>>>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >>>>>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >>>>>>>>> to the concrete. >>>>>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >>>>>>>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>>>>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>>>>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>>>>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>>>>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>>>>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>>>>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>>>>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>>>> ????????????>>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% >>>>>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . >>>>>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>>>>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>>>>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>>>>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange >>>>>>>>> reason was not published then or later. >>>>>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>>>>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. >>>>>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>>>>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >>>>>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >>>>>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>>>>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>>>>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>>>>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>>>>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>>>>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >>>>>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>>>>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>>>>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >>>>>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >>>>>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>>>>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>>>>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >>>>>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>>>>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>>>>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>>>>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >>>>>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >>>>>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>>>>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>>>>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >>>>>>>>> return to this somehow later. >>>>>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>>>>>>>> work of 1988: >>>>>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>>>>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>>>>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >>>>>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>>>>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>>>>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>>>>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>>>>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>>>>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>>>>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>>>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>>>>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>>>>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >>>>>>> activity. >>>>>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >>>>>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>>>>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>>>>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >>>>>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>>>>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>>>>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>>>>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>>>>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >>>>>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>>>>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>>>>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>>>>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>>>>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >>>>>>> relation.? >>>>>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>>>>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>>>>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>>>>>>>> "addressing" to another person. >>>>>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>>>>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >>>>>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>>>>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >>>>>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>>>>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >>>>>>> Ilyenkov. >>>>>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >>>>>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>>>>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>>>>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>>>>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>>>>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>>>>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>>>>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >>>>>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>>>>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>>>>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>>>>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>>>>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >>>>>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>>>>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>>>>>>>> social relations.. " >>>>>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>>>>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>>>>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>>>>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >>>>>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >>>>>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>>>>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>>>>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >>>>>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>>>>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>>>>>>>> solved by ourselves. >>>>>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>>>>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>>>>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was >>>>>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>>>>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>>>>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >>>>>>>>> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas >>>>>>>>> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was >>>>>>>>> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other >>>>>>>>> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas >>>>>>>>> "Leningraders" were for "communication". >>>>>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>>>>>>>> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a literal >>>>>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>>>>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>>>>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>>>>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >>>>>>>>> rather indecent. >>>>>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>>>>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>>>>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>>>>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >>>>>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>>>>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>>>>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>>>>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>>>>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>>>>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>>>>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>>>>>>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>>>>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >>>>>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>>>>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>>>>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters >>>>>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>>>>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>>>>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>>>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>>>>>>>> "communication" and "activity." >>>>>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>>>>> object oriented activity, which is an attribute property >>>>>>>>> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, >>>>>>>>> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we >>>>>>>>> will never get life or object oriented activity even with >>>>>>>>> the greatest diligence. >>>>>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >>>>>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>>>>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>>>>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>>>>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>>>>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >>>>>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >>>>>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>>>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>>>>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>>>>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>>>>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>>>>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>>>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >>>>>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >>>>>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>>>>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>>>>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>>>>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>>>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my diploma >>>>>>>>> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist >>>>>>>>> theoretical solution to the question of the relation of >>>>>>>>> objective activity and "communication". In the same time, >>>>>>>>> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active >>>>>>>>> relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is >>>>>>>>> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, >>>>>>>>> any other, psychology. >>>>>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >>>>>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>>>>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >>>>>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>>>>>>>> English text >>>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>>>>> and read it to the end :-). >>>>>>>>>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >>>>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>>>> ????????????>>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> >>>>>>>>>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short >>>>>>>>> English one >>>>>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ >>>>>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% >>>>>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% >>>>>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% >>>>>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% >>>>>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% >>>>>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. >>>>>>>>>> Sasha > > > From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Tue Oct 17 15:40:13 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 22:40:13 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?RndkOiAg0J7RgtCyOiAgUmU6INCe0YLQsjogUmU6IE9iamVj?= =?utf-8?q?t_oriented_activity_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <7D458EBB-2A42-49A2-B5B4-AB7DB3A35789@manchester.ac.uk> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <946739873.1395270.1506729245941@mail.yahoo.com> <1507467802697.19947@iped.uio.no> <62400150.1978332.1507899477645@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net>, <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com>, <49BC6E1396C8F94B92715533ED4D20DC664DD15F@MBXP01.ds.man.ac.uk>, <7D458EBB-2A42-49A2-B5B4-AB7DB3A35789@manchester.ac.uk> Message-ID: <1508280013614.49342@iped.uio.no> Brilliant, Julian, I think your post is most needed for this discussion to continue being helpful to as many as possible. It is really easy to lose the plot. But I think your question, what is the problem? goes to the core of it. And, in fact, I would say that there is so much talk about 'which unit' precisely because it is by answering that question that we pose the research problem, the field of study. So, in less theological but perhaps not less modest terms, I guess we are trying to address the problem of on which methodological basis we can continue building a cultural-historical psychology. But the edges and nuances are so many, that we really need to be conscious not to lose the plot. Bringing every question to bear on a clearly stated problem will be of much help. Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Julian Williams Sent: 18 October 2017 00:03 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication > Dear sasha and all > > How interesting and appropriate that in 2017, nearly ten years after the economic collapse and presumably on the verge of the next one, we are discussing the significance of the commodity in Das Kap (DK). > > And yet, it feels a little bit like a theological discussion: 'is the commodity a unit?' of something or not. > > I think reading DK (chapter 1) that it should be clear what is going on there - the production of commodities arises in pre-capitalist societies (even in simple, often subsistence societies some marketisation of the surplus is key, even when this was not the motivation of production) but becomes the dominant factor/motive (production for a market) and eventually leads to 'capitalism' as Marx sees it, where C-M-C has now become dominated by M-C-M' and the world of finance, when (M' - M) rules the world.... > > It is this transformation of the commodity from an object of exchange to the object of production and a medium for accumulation, and the political-economic dominance of the latter that is at stake in DK. So the 'commodity' for Marx was the 'unit- concept' for understanding the emergence of capitalism. (Did he ever refer to it as a unit? I don't recall..). > > This analysis all leads to the particular, productive concept of 'surplus value' (in the labour theory of value), which Marx regarded as his only particularly distinctive, original concept (i.e. how to explain M' - M in the production process in terms of the labour theory of value: capital steals the value of labour in production, 'exploitation' in a new form). > > Now - we seem to be engaged in some sort of theological discussion 'where/what is the 'unit' of capital?' ... But I think we need to consider what is our question, what are we trying now to explain? i.e. How did we come to this question about 'what is the unit?' and why? > > Maybe my problem here is that I've lost the 'plot'`; what problem are we trying to explain/elucidate here? I sense criticism of Vygotsky's attempts to identify units like the commodity - e.g. 'word-meaning', and 'perezhivanie'. Fair enough: maybe even the 'unit' of commodity that we would like to emulate is not generalisable. > > Isn't the question 'what is the unit?' An instrumentalist ion of the big question 'what is the problem?' We are addressing? (Note that the Media can't cope here with punctuating three questions in one sentence - sorry.) > > Julian > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Alexander Surmava [alexander.surmava@yahoo.com] > Sent: 16 October 2017 16:00 > To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Alfredo Jornet Gil; Mike Cole; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Ivan Uemlianin; Martin John Packer > Subject: [Xmca-l] ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication > > Dear colleagues, > Excuse me for the delay in responding to your previous posts about Leontiev and Vygotsky. The problems that we are discussing are so serious that it takes a long time to think about them and formulate an answer. Especially in English :-). > Therefore, the main answer I hope to put on the XMCA no earlier than tomorrow. > But suddenly the discussion turned into an extremely interesting side. I mean analysis of the logic of "Das Kapital". It is discussed what can and should be properly considered the unit of analysis of both Capital and ?Das Kapital?, the world system of capitalism and its reflection in Marx? theoretic masterpiece. At least two hypotheses have been voiced. The first is that such a unit is a separate " business", a capitalist firm. And the second, that the unit of analysis is the exchange of goods. > I think that I can hardly agree with both hypotheses.It seems to me that for Marx the first, most abstract stage of analysis is in no case the exchange of goods, but the commodity itself. And not an abstract commodity, but a commodity produced under capitalistic relations. Therefore, the unit of analysis is strictly speaking the very production of such a commodity. > The exchange of goods occurs not only under capitalism, but also under slavery, and under feudalism. This is not an independent, not substantial concept. The exchange depends on the mode of production, and not vice versa. > The same can be applied to "communication" in psychology, to the "exchange" of ideas, caresses or beatings. This communication does not occur due to certain immanent laws of interpersonal communication, but entirely depends on the collaborative object-oriented activity (predmetnoy deyatelnosty), collective labor of historically determined individuals. In turn, the nature of their collective work, depends not on the distribution of genes in their genomes, but on the distribution of the means of production, on the distribution of labor instruments. Let us emphasize, not on the distribution of verbal signs, not on ideology, but on the distribution of the most material weapons of human activity. > With communist greetings :-) , Sasha > P.S. By the way, I enthusiastically welcome the fact that our discussion has switched from discussing Vygotsky's "units" to discussing the most abstract category of "Das Kapital" of Marx, that is, from a pale copy, to the original. By the way, in the future it might be interesting to re-read the "Dialectics of the abstract and concrete in scientific and theoretical thinking" by EV Ilyenkov. This work contains an elaborate analysis of the method of Marx, in comparison with which Vygotsky's methodological reflexion seems to be something quite student-like. > > > ??: Andy Blunden > ????: Alfredo Jornet Gil ; "xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu" > ??????????: ???????????, 16 ??????? 2017 15:51 > ????: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication > > Capitals are units of capital. The only whole is the world > market, within which units of capital grow and shrink, > consume one another and so on. A capital (i.e. a firm) is > not a "whole" in the true sense of the word, and I would > have an issue with anyone who wants to treat a firm as a > "system of activity" if there were any implication that this > means a "closed system." > > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 16/10/2017 11:42 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >> >> Your point in the first paragraph is what I was trying to >> convey to Haidy, to see if there is room there for common >> ground between your positions. ? >> >> Alfredo >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Andy Blunden >> *Sent:* 16 October 2017 14:39 >> *To:* Alfredo Jornet Gil; xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >> *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented >> activity and communication >> >> >> Yes, yes, Alfredo! But what is often overlooked is that >> the aim of Marx's research is not commodity exchange (in >> itself a harmless business) but capital. But he does not >> *start* with capital, but goes down to its roots, its >> source, in the circulation of commodities. >> >> Compare with Vygotsky's analysis of the intellect >> (thinking). Word meanings are *not* the subject matter of >> Vygotsky's research (who gives a damn!?), but concepts! >> But he does not start with concepts, but goes down to its >> roots, its source, in speech arising in collaborative >> activity. Actually, AN Leontyev missed this, as can be >> seen in his trenchant attack on Vygotsky in his ?Study of >> the Environment in the Pedological Works of L. S. Vygotsky". >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>> On 16/10/2017 11:31 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>> Damn! Commodity exchange is the unit of burgeons society... I have to study more! Thanks Andy >>> >>> "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as ?an immense accumulation of commodities,?[1] its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity" >>> >>> Alfredo >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden >>> Sent: 16 October 2017 14:22 >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >>> >>> Just to illustrate that I am being an orthodox Marxist here, >>> from Chapter 10, Vol. 3 of Capital: >>> >>> "In the case of capitals of average, or approximately >>> average, composition, the price of production is thus >>> the same or almost the same as the value, and the profit >>> the same as the surplus-value produced by them. All >>> other capitals, of whatever composition, tend toward >>> this average under pressure of competition. But since >>> the capitals of average composition are of the same, or >>> approximately the same, structure as the average social >>> capital, all capitals have the tendency, regardless of >>> the surplus-value produced by them, to realize the >>> average profit, rather than their own surplus-value in >>> the price of their commodity, i.e., to realize the >>> prices of production." >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Andy Blunden >>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>> On 16/10/2017 11:18 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >>>> No, Alfredo. A unit of capital is a firm (or company). It is >>>> impossible to explain the formation of a rate of profit (at >>>> least as Marx does in /Capital/) without the conception of >>>> units of capital, namely, firms and the competition between >>>> them. Firms are of course, what Engestrom would call a >>>> "system of activity" or I would call a "project" and >>>> Leontyev almost could call an activity. But in the USSR >>>> there were no firms, only the state. It is perhaps A N >>>> Leonytev's greatest discovery that there are both micro and >>>> molar units in any complex process. True in Psychology and >>>> true in political economy. Whereas exchange of commodities >>>> is an artefact-mediated action, a firm is an activity, a >>>> specific aggregate of actions, directed towards the >>>> quantitative maximisation of the value of the unit of capital. >>>> >>>> English is not a perfect language either. : ) The word >>>> "consciousness" has the unfortunate connotation of being a >>>> mass noun (or continuous substance) whereas it is know only, >>>> of course, in individual "consciousnesses" or "minds." But >>>> it sounds so clumsy to say "a consciousness." >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Andy Blunden >>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>> On 16/10/2017 11:07 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>>>> Haydi, >>>>> >>>>> I think Andy does not mean 'one capital' versus 'several capitals', for, if I read Andy adequately, Capital is for him not a unit but rather the whole of which commodity exchange is the unit. Thus, the germ cell of Capital is thus not Capital, or 'a' Capital, which you seem to attribute to Andy; just as I don't think he is arguing that there is consciousness, and then many consciousnesses. So it may be that you two agree more than disagree, judging by your last paragraph. >>>>> >>>>> Whether his position on singular and plurals is more or less adequate than another positions, that I leave it up to the discussion. >>>>> >>>>> Alfredo >>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? >>>>> Sent: 16 October 2017 09:45 >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Andy Blunden >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >>>>> >>>>> Thank you David for your explanation! Though for me it needs more than one read. >>>>> >>>>> The point was whether use of activity and activities in Leontiev is a contradiction. Whoever L was and whatever he believed in , he was not so negligent to the point of posing activity first and immediately after that recounting 'activities'. Translation ruled out a committed error. Then such a blundering display must have a justification rather than a misunderstanding in comprehension. >>>>> >>>>> In one sense all things are related. The more so with the Monistic View. We have so many corporate and incorporate things , two of them so problematic communication and practical activity since Descartes and we are determined to avoid Dualism and refer and return all phenomena to that same thing , the one substance. In the actuality of the world , there's nothing discrete , that is , absolutely unrelated. Is that pretext for us not to see this unbounded versatility and hues and dues as distinct coloring? Maybe one of the ways was for man to let Nature go unrestrained?? But man also did not come of its own will. >>>>> >>>>> The sole way destined or open to Man was of its Nature to engage with the surrounding. To deal with it sensually and subjectively/agently. Then Man in one time interpreted all phenomena as they appeared to him. But he grew up further than his infantile period. He learnt to delve into matters , go deeper and deeper. With one spectacle (plane) he observed how that single substance let its attributes multiply themselves into different shapes and colors and Modes. With another plane of the one spectacle observed the variation of the Modes themselves. I mean Ontology and Epistemology not yet separate from each other as I used a pair of planes for that matter. >>>>> >>>>> Then we usually don't use a nail-clipper for alterations and manipulations in Genes. Or devices for Genes for our feeding and nutrition. It is then within these constraints that corporate and incorporate phenomena differ. Singles and plurals differ. Discrete and the indivisible differ. Parts and Moments differ. Wholes and mere entities differ. A process and a product resulting from that process differ. No justification to interchange them because of the use of A in front of them. >>>>> >>>>> I wonder if this is true for others too. For me it's difficult to accept to say "this capital that capital" "those 8 capitals united" "capitals of the world dissolved into unanimity". If I'm correct in this , it's , I think , because Capital is a Whole , coming out of a long process of functions and disfunctions , moments of circulations and transient stagnation , booms and boosts and drawbacks and failures. The moment of its conception in the exchange of commodities up to the discovery of the private appropriation of the surplus value to the point of harnessing every means to penetrate each tight corner of the big World. >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> Haydi >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: David Kellogg >>>>> To: Andy Blunden ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >>>>> Sent: Monday, 16 October 2017, 2:21:12 >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication >>>>> >>>>> Of course, neither an object nor a process is discrete (or even, as Andy >>>>> says, "discreet"). Who can tell me where a mountain river ends and the >>>>> alluvial plain begins? Certainly not Cezanne or the phenomenologists who so >>>>> loved him. Yet a mountain is most assuredly an object, just as surely >>>>> as climbing the mountain to ascertain its degree of montagnitude is a >>>>> process. >>>>> >>>>> This last week I've been struggling through the "Curriculum Reforms" >>>>> wrought by three right wing governments in Norway, Finland, and New >>>>> Zealand. Like Catalonia, these are all countries where unpopular coalitions >>>>> of right parties are replacing a much more popular but obviously >>>>> unsuccessful social democratic coalition of left parties. In Norway and in >>>>> Finland, the coalition actually includes the far right, neo-fascist, >>>>> anti-immigrant parties, and in New Zealand it includes the ACT, that is, an >>>>> "association of consumers and taxpayers" whose main interest is cutting >>>>> education budgets, starting by making teachers and students fight each >>>>> other for scarce resources in the form of "block grants". >>>>> >>>>> Now, all of these governments are more or less bound by something called >>>>> DeSeCo, which is short for Describe and Select Competences. This is because >>>>> right-wing ideology sees education not as a public good but as a commodity, >>>>> to be judged by tangible results and priced accordingly. This presents a >>>>> real theoretical problem for right-wingers, because they ALSO see that >>>>> "flexible labor markets" and "entrepreneurial spirit" means that there >>>>> isn't any way of deciding on what skills or even what knowledge the >>>>> "economy of the future" will demand. >>>>> >>>>> We can see this in the emphasis on "competence". Competence is not a thing >>>>> or a process, and it is neither discrete nor discreet. Of course, if you >>>>> are a linguist, competence is something Chomsky thought of in the sixties, >>>>> an abstract form of knowledge in a hypothetical native speaker-hearer in an >>>>> imaginary homogenous speech community. It is "discrete" in the sense of >>>>> being nowhere and nowhen connectible to performance in any way. It is >>>>> therefore "discreet" in the sense of being untestable--as soon as you test >>>>> it, you have a form of performance, not competence. It's like standing in >>>>> front of a classroom with a picture of a guy swimming and trying to teach >>>>> the expression "i can swim". What you have in the picture is not "I can >>>>> swim"; it's manifestly "he is swimming". >>>>> >>>>> But in DeSeCo, you get these lists of competences, which are set up as if >>>>> they were discrete so you can list them on a Powerpoint slide and sell them >>>>> to ministries of education. And the real selling point is that, on the one >>>>> hand, because they are all "meta-skills" and "meta-knowledges", they don't >>>>> have any practical outcome or real commitment to a job and a livelihood. >>>>> And on the other, they sound terribly powerful when you phrase them as >>>>> "learning to learn" or "transversal competence" or "meta-cognitive skills" >>>>> or something like that. Jobs, in other words, are discretionary. After >>>>> centuries of promising jobs and livelhood in return for school and boredom, >>>>> the Western economies have decided that sticks are cheaper than carrots, >>>>> and the thing to do is simply to rule people who don't have educational >>>>> certificates out of the job market rather than try to provide >>>>> actual know-how and factual know-that. >>>>> >>>>> Here are my four favorites (i.e. the four that we stress in our own >>>>> curricular reform here in South Korea): >>>>> >>>>> interpersonal competence (sociability, the ability to 'be alone with >>>>> others' as Hughlings Jackson put it) >>>>> cultural competence (enculturation, the ability to understand traditions, >>>>> mores, and norms) >>>>> creative competence (intelligence, innovation, yadda yadda) >>>>> individual competence (the ability to dress yourself, feed yourself, and >>>>> show up for an interview where you will not be offered a job) >>>>> >>>>> Vygotsky, as usual, has a better idea--it's a mountain. We just turn the >>>>> DeSeCO PPT upside down. Then we add each competence---freedom, creative >>>>> intelligence, encultured habits and tastes, and instiinctive >>>>> sociability--as a superstructure erected on the basis of the previous one: >>>>> >>>>> free will (the ability to make choices that are not necessarily intelligent >>>>> or habitual or instinctive) >>>>> intelligence (the ability to make choices that are not habitual or >>>>> instinctive but nevertheless adaptive) >>>>> enculturation (the ability to make choices that are not instinctive but >>>>> conform to the choices that have proven successful in the now socialized >>>>> environment) >>>>> instinct (the ability to make choices that are responsive to the >>>>> environment and which conform to the choices that have proven successful in >>>>> phylogenesis) >>>>> >>>>> Are theses objects? Of course, if we say so. And processes? Well, how else >>>>> could they have come about? What they are not, however, is either >>>>> "discrete" or "discreet": they are clearly linked to each other, and they >>>>> are all linked, through the lower layer, to adaptations ot the environment. >>>>> >>>>> And there's the rub--where the rubber meets the road. The real question, >>>>> for our teachers and for our children, is about what will happen to them >>>>> now that these competences can no longer be redeemed in jobs. Will the >>>>> anti-Faustian bargain of exchanging your youth for a >>>>> stable middle-aged livelihood survive? >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Haydi, you say "AN activity is not a thing ; it's a >>>>>> process." I wonder then what is a thing which is not also a >>>>>> process? (I interpret "thing" as meaning "something >>>>>> discrete," otherwise your objection makes no sense.) The >>>>>> point is that Hegel does not make this dichotomy - every >>>>>> thing is also a process and vice versa. That a process is >>>>>> also discreet is important because it is only thanks to its >>>>>> discreteness that we can cognise the process and in fact >>>>>> only thanks to its discreteness that a process can affect >>>>>> anything else. To speak of processes which are not also >>>>>> discrete is to speak in abstractions. >>>>>> >>>>>> On this point, when Hegel puts ideas above matter, it has to >>>>>> be realised that for Hegel "ideas" are social practices - he >>>>>> is simply place human practice at the centre of human life >>>>>> and its comprehension, rather than the mechanical and >>>>>> chemical processes of Nature. If you think that "ideas" are >>>>>> simply chimera inside our heads, then, of course, Hegel's >>>>>> idealism seems like madness. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, all the Marxists have blasted Hegel. As they must. >>>>>> Otherwise they must end up advocates of Constitutional >>>>>> Monarchy. But while Marx uses almost every mention he makes >>>>>> of Hegel to criticise him, often in extreme terms, it can go >>>>>> unnoticed the extent to which in practice Marx follows Hegel >>>>>> in philosophy. Of course Marx is not equal to Hegel, but >>>>>> simple formulae do not contribute to understanding the relation. >>>>>> >>>>>> Andy >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>> On 15/10/2017 6:51 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: >>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let me first apologize to David Kellog because in others' >>>>>>> wandering and perplexity it was he who in his reading of >>>>>>> Gramsci's prison letters came across this point and made >>>>>>> you not only accept the inappropriateness of Hegel's >>>>>>> headstand as Crowning every worldly affair deriving from >>>>>>> the People's Heads "Idea" , "Absolute" but also >>>>>>> intensifying this point with more examples and references >>>>>>> from Engels' "utopian versus genuine socialism" on your >>>>>>> part. Of course you've been helping us on many occasions >>>>>>> and you're very welcome for this nothing to be denied. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At this point we have no problem with translation. >>>>>>> Leontiev meant it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Suppose that ANL does not know "individual" which is very >>>>>>> ambiguous because in what then one should seek the >>>>>>> embodiment of the "particular" and if one takes the very >>>>>>> particular as individual , then everything gets mixed up . >>>>>>> Then what about you who stick firmly on individual >>>>>>> discrete detached activities as an objection to Sasha's >>>>>>> sole ACTIVITY as theoretical understanding. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As you well know even AN activity is not a thing ; it's a >>>>>>> process. And you once distinguished between GENERAL WORK >>>>>>> ACTIVITY and LABOUR ACTIVITY or VALORIZATION ACTIVITY >>>>>>> which was quite right and timely though you recently gave >>>>>>> differing definitions in no way harmonious to your >>>>>>> previous definitions. But the main problem is blending >>>>>>> clarity in expression with concrete in theory. No doubt >>>>>>> you're a Fan of Hegel. I should repeat myself : Hegel is a >>>>>>> hero of theoretical concepts. In theorizing , and for him >>>>>>> to explicate the Essence of Phenomena , he begins with >>>>>>> apparently concrete things as ABSTRACTS finally reaches >>>>>>> CONCRETE UNIVERSALS as concepts. And here we again very >>>>>>> surprisingly see you put your finger upon what you should >>>>>>> have known in person is contrary to your own erudition. >>>>>>> Turning Hegel down as believing in discrete abstracts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And now to his son's comment : What individual are you >>>>>>> pursuing? Your Hegel sees phenomena in their relations. >>>>>>> According to him and also according to ANL ACTIVITY as a >>>>>>> unit of Life is Molar non-additive. He even does not see >>>>>>> operations as single acts. It's a matter of the angle of >>>>>>> vision not detachment and concreteness. If his son had >>>>>>> talked of concreteness in moments of activity , then you >>>>>>> were right in your objections and oppositions. You please >>>>>>> give us your last definition of activity here (not in >>>>>>> lengthy references) so that we can have a discerning >>>>>>> option. >>>>>>> So far to remove the problem we should accept operations >>>>>>> are separately and independently carried out ; actions in >>>>>>> their own are carried out ; activities are carried out >>>>>>> arbitrarily. And these are done to the realization of man >>>>>>> as the ensemble of social relations based on some >>>>>>> infrastructure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hegel's metaphor has been thrown back at him by Marx , >>>>>>> Engels , Lenin , Vygotsky , Ilyenko , and many others. If >>>>>>> you like to stand above all Giants of Marxism , it's >>>>>>> something perfectly and absolutely Personal as you're >>>>>>> speaking out loud! Then why give us so many references. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Haydi >>>>>>> >>>>>>> P.S. Alfredo! Though you have my previous private response >>>>>>> concerning the matters you pose I see myself accountable >>>>>>> to rewrite them to the Public. Thanks! >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> *From:* Andy Blunden >>>>>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, 15 October 2017, 5:35:40 >>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity >>>>>>> and communication >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Haydi, partly the problem with ANL's >>>>>>> philosophy-as-we-know-it is simply a product of its >>>>>>> translation into English. But partly it is also in his >>>>>>> philosophy. As Victor Kaptelinin first pointed out (so far >>>>>>> as I know), ANL knows the universal and the particular but >>>>>>> he does not know the individual. And his son's comment that >>>>>>> ANL did not conceive of Activity as being discrete proves >>>>>>> this to be the case. Thus his concept of Activity is not a >>>>>>> fully concrete concept. And this is not a product of >>>>>>> translation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As David Kellogg has kindly pointed out to me, it was Hegel >>>>>>> who actually first introduced this metaphor of people >>>>>>> "walking (or standing) on their heads." Personally, I don't >>>>>>> think it has ever helped anyone understand the defect of >>>>>>> Hegel's philosophy to throw this metaphor back at him. As >>>>>>> demonstrated in this issue (the concept of activity) it was >>>>>>> Hegel who understood that a concept must have all three >>>>>>> moments - universal, particular and individual. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>> On 15/10/2017 9:24 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: >>>>>>>> Dear Mike, >>>>>>>> Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an >>>>>>> activist for his concreteness and clarifications is >>>>>>> crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot >>>>>>> ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes , Parts , >>>>>>> and Moments. He personally provided us with examples from >>>>>>> Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they convert >>>>>>> Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced with the >>>>>>> same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most >>>>>>> valuable contribution) does not begin with the individual >>>>>>> case in isolation which phenomenologically speaking (in >>>>>>> contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for >>>>>>> appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not obtained >>>>>>> because one instance is considered detached from all >>>>>>> relations and its subservience to the service of the >>>>>>> Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is particular in >>>>>>> some feature/s. And these particulars are essential. With >>>>>>> other particulars in other individuals they are related >>>>>>> actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense , this whole >>>>>>> could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life itself. >>>>>>> Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is , >>>>>>> with category and concept only therefore , following Marx >>>>>>> and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again on his >>>>>>> feet (not that the firmament to that time did put "idea" >>>>>>> on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on their >>>>>>> heads but to put them again headstand thinking and acting >>>>>>> with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just >>>>>>> with their brains. Then taking all options in translation >>>>>>> even that of a Machine into consideration it does not seem >>>>>>> to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of >>>>>>> Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of >>>>>>> activities thereafter. These activities are those arising >>>>>>> from the properties of versatile objects in turn arising >>>>>>> from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile >>>>>>> needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think >>>>>>> Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual >>>>>>> activities as moments with the broadest idea of the >>>>>>> Monistic Substantial Modes or States in Philosophical >>>>>>> terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn integrate and >>>>>>> are dissolved into Monism of Substance. >>>>>>>> Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche >>>>>>> (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one >>>>>>> Substance) is already there with the organism actively and >>>>>>> spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own , >>>>>>> positioning its due object and moving along its contours >>>>>>> and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to itself >>>>>>> , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and >>>>>>> bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as >>>>>>> novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with >>>>>>> Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with a huge >>>>>>> gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of >>>>>>> consciousness , now apparently ascending to "wording" and >>>>>>> "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration) further >>>>>>> "communication" as something indispensable and necessary >>>>>>> and inevitable to the realization of life affairs. >>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>> Haydi >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: mike cole >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> To: Andy Blunden >>>>>> >; "eXtended Mind, Culture, >>>>>>> Activity" >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Cc: Alexander Surmava >>>>>> >; ivan-dgf >>>>>>> >; Ivan >>>>>>> Uemlianin >; >>>>>>> Haydi Zulfei >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50 >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented >>>>>>> activity and communication >>>>>>>> Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.Could someone post >>>>>>> the Russian text next to the English so that it is >>>>>>> possible to compare it with the translation? I spent >>>>>>> several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of >>>>>>> Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally defeated >>>>>>> me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra rubles in >>>>>>> my pocket. >>>>>>>> Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us >>>>>>> a "true" translation. >>>>>>>> mike >>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> The Progress Publishers English translation of "Activity and >>>>>>>> Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of >>>>>>>> Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, >>>>>>>> material life of the material subject. In the narrower >>>>>>>> sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a unit of >>>>>>>> life, mediated by mental reflection, by >>>>>>>> an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the >>>>>>>> subject in the objective world. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The >>>>>>>> Development of Mind" we have: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an >>>>>>>> organism?s activity; the different activities that realise >>>>>>>> its diverse vital relations with the surrounding reality are >>>>>>>> essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore >>>>>>>> differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively >>>>>>>> different] types of activity according to the difference in >>>>>>>> their objects. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses >>>>>>>> "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has >>>>>>>> been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for >>>>>>>> English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean simply >>>>>>>> "category." The second does the same, but in addition makes >>>>>>>> it evident that the plural does not refer to different >>>>>>>> activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the >>>>>>>> possibility of forming a true concept of activity >>>>>>> altogether. >>>>>>>> With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is >>>>>>>> simply that "such an initial *category* can only be >>>>>>>> object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing >>>>>>>> that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units, >>>>>>>> even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics. >>>>>>> org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>> On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: >>>>>>>>> Dear Andy! >>>>>>>>> I am glad that our communication was resumed after many >>>>>>>>> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and files >>>>>>>>> and found that the problem of "object oriented activity OR >>>>>>>>> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before >>>>>>>>> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is serious and >>>>>>>>> it deserves to return to it today. >>>>>>>>> Last year I was close to being silent forever. >>>>>>>>> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed >>>>>>>>> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the >>>>>>>>> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my >>>>>>>>> theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my >>>>>>>>> descendants :-). >>>>>>>>> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not >>>>>>>>> understand your question. What means the distinction >>>>>>>>> between singular and plural number in your remark? Could >>>>>>>>> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the >>>>>>>>> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my >>>>>>>>> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide, >>>>>>>>> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of >>>>>>>>> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my dissertation >>>>>>>>> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's "Theory of >>>>>>>>> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, >>>>>>>>> having understood the theoretic meaning of your claims to >>>>>>>>> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily >>>>>>>>> understand the essence of your objections to me. >>>>>>>>> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I >>>>>>>>> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a >>>>>>>>> particular empirical case of its manifestation. Therefore, >>>>>>>>> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just like >>>>>>>>> Matter, Nature, or Substance. >>>>>>>>> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come across >>>>>>>>> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its >>>>>>>>> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the >>>>>>>>> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old >>>>>>>>> philosophers and that only the numerous individual "atomic >>>>>>>>> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really >>>>>>>>> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar >>>>>>>>> positivism and empiricism. >>>>>>>>> However, all of this may not apply to your position ... >>>>>>>>> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue. >>>>>>>>> Best wishes >>>>>>>>> Sasha >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>> > ?????(?): >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'll ask Sasha a question. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial >>>>>>>>> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it >>>>>>> stands, >>>>>>>>> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be >>>>>>> that you >>>>>>>>> are translating it from a Russian statement that is >>>>>>> correct. >>>>>>>>> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in when I >>>>>>>>> say "every activity has an object." But in your expression >>>>>>>>> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and >>>>>>> unless >>>>>>>>> you are a religious person is not something which can >>>>>>> have a >>>>>>>>> specific object. All English translations of A N Leontyev >>>>>>>>> make this mistake which has caused no end of confusion >>>>>>> among >>>>>>>>> English-speakers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity," just as >>>>>>>>> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics. >>>>>>> org/ablunden/index.htm >>>>>>>>>> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Dear Sasha, all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding >>>>>>>>> response. I think you are right in your assertion that we >>>>>>>>> are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of >>>>>>>>> CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. However, one >>>>>>>>> can see in the lack of response by other members?? that >>>>>>>>> not everyone has the privilege of the time it requires to >>>>>>>>> go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing >>>>>>>>> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce and I >>>>>>>>> hope it is/will be appreciated as such. >>>>>>>>>> If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, I quote >>>>>>>>> from your response: >>>>>>>>>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>>>>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>>>>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>>>>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" >>>>>>>>>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework >>>>>>>>> according to which we are looking of the most original >>>>>>>>> germ cell, the one from which all others can be >>>>>>>>> developed??, then object-oriented activity is primary. I >>>>>>>>> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree on >>>>>>> that. >>>>>>>>>> But ??once we are back to the development of a concrete >>>>>>>>> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact that, for >>>>>>>>> any child to participate in human forms of object-oriented >>>>>>>>> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented >>>>>>>>> activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular >>>>>>>>> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into those >>>>>>>>> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category >>>>>>>>> devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with >>>>>>>>> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you describe, is >>>>>>>>> this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology, or is >>>>>>>>> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? >>>>>>>>>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others answer >>>>>>>>> (which I hope some do). >>>>>>>>>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in >>>>>>>>> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of teaching >>>>>>>>> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this >>>>>>>>> is only possible through *involvement* in collective >>>>>>>>> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary >>>>>>>>> over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is >>>>>>>>> only possible in and through object-oriented activity). >>>>>>>>> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional aspect of >>>>>>>>> the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to >>>>>>>>> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this >>>>>>>>> object-oriented activity already ?characterised by all >>>>>>>>> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually >>>>>>>>> uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such >>>>>>>>> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get >>>>>>>>> collective activity without them? On this, and precisely >>>>>>>>> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of Man", >>>>>>>>> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in that >>>>>>>>> case that communication is included in activity and is its >>>>>>>>> essential component: without relation to another >>>>>>>>> person(s), activity is impossible' (144). Although I not >>>>>>>>> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I can't >>>>>>>>> see how he can be wrong. >>>>>>>>>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of >>>>>>>>> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the >>>>>>>>> category of object-oriented activity, is most primary. Let >>>>>>>>> me also note that ?there are other authors who have >>>>>>>>> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you >>>>>>>>> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on >>>>>>>>> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom >>>>>>>>> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of auto-affection' ( >>>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/ Incarnation-Philosophy- >>>>>>> Studies-Phenomenology- Existential/dp/0810131269 >>>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>>>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I wonder >>>>>>>>> whether ?we should be forced to choose between activity >>>>>>>>> and communication. Is not the distinction just an artefact >>>>>>>>> of a partial understanding of what it means activity and >>>>>>>>> what it means communicating. I still feel that >>>>>>>>> communication, in the sense of addressivity that Mikhailov >>>>>>>>> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for >>>>>>>>> semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity >>>>>>>>> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't >>>>>>>>> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps >>>>>>>>> naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication >>>>>>>>> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in >>>>>>>>> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I >>>>>>>>> don't see how any practical activity can have any sense >>>>>>>>> (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity. >>>>>>>>> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are >>>>>>>>> talking about; one machines could perform on their own >>>>>>>>> without consciousness. ? >>>>>>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Alfredo >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ______________________________ __ >>>>>>>>>> From: Alexander Surmava >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 >>>>>>>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> edu>; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo >>>>>>>>> Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>>>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >>>>>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>>>>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >>>>>>>>> aside) :-) >>>>>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>>>>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >>>>>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >>>>>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>>>>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>>>>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >>>>>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>>>>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>>>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >>>>>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >>>>>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >>>>>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>>>>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>>>>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>>>>>>>> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>>>>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >>>>>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >>>>>>>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>>>>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >>>>>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>>>>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>>>>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>>>>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >>>>>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>>>>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>>>>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>>>>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical >>>>>>>>> verbiage>>>>>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ >>>>>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> >>>>>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>>>>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >>>>>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>>>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >>>>>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>>>>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>>>>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>>>>>>>> Agitprop >>>>>>>>>> sticks >>>>>>>>>> in my teeth too, >>>>>>>>>> and I?d rather >>>>>>>>>> compose >>>>>>>>>> romances for you - >>>>>>>>>> more profit in it >>>>>>>>>> and more charm. >>>>>>>>>> But I >>>>>>>>>> subdued >>>>>>>>>> myself, >>>>>>>>>> setting my heel >>>>>>>>>> on the throat >>>>>>>>>> of my own song. >>>>>>>>>> Vladimir Mayakovski >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ? ??? >>>>>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>>>>> ? ????? ?????, >>>>>>>>>> ? ??? ?? >>>>>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>>>>> ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>>>>>>>> ???????? ??? >>>>>>>>>> ? ??????????. >>>>>>>>>> ?? ? >>>>>>>>>> ???? >>>>>>>>>> ??????, >>>>>>>>>> ????????? >>>>>>>>>> ?? ????? >>>>>>>>>> ??????????? ?????. >>>>>>>>>> ???????? ?????????? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>>>>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>>>>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>>>>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >>>>>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >>>>>>>>> to the concrete. >>>>>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >>>>>>>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>>>>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>>>>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>>>>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>>>>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>>>>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>>>>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>>>>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>>>> ????????????>>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% >>>>>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . >>>>>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>>>>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>>>>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>>>>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange >>>>>>>>> reason was not published then or later. >>>>>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>>>>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. >>>>>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>>>>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >>>>>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >>>>>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>>>>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>>>>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>>>>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>>>>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>>>>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >>>>>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>>>>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>>>>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >>>>>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >>>>>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>>>>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>>>>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >>>>>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>>>>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>>>>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>>>>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >>>>>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >>>>>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>>>>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>>>>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >>>>>>>>> return to this somehow later. >>>>>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>>>>>>>> work of 1988: >>>>>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>>>>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>>>>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >>>>>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>>>>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>>>>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>>>>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>>>>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>>>>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>>>>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>>>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>>>>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>>>>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >>>>>>> activity. >>>>>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >>>>>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>>>>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>>>>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >>>>>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>>>>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>>>>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>>>>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>>>>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >>>>>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>>>>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>>>>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>>>>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>>>>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >>>>>>> relation.? >>>>>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>>>>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>>>>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>>>>>>>> "addressing" to another person. >>>>>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>>>>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >>>>>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>>>>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >>>>>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>>>>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >>>>>>> Ilyenkov. >>>>>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >>>>>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>>>>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>>>>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>>>>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>>>>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>>>>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>>>>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >>>>>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>>>>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>>>>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>>>>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>>>>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >>>>>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>>>>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>>>>>>>> social relations.. " >>>>>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>>>>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>>>>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>>>>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >>>>>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >>>>>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>>>>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>>>>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >>>>>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>>>>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>>>>>>>> solved by ourselves. >>>>>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>>>>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>>>>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was AN >>>>>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>>>>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>>>>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >>>>>>>>> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a group of >>>>>>>>> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was inclined to >>>>>>>>> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, >>>>>>>>> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders" >>>>>>>>> were for communication. >>>>>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>>>>>>>> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal >>>>>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>>>>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>>>>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>>>>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >>>>>>>>> rather indecent. >>>>>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>>>>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>>>>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>>>>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >>>>>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>>>>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>>>>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>>>>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>>>>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>>>>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>>>>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>>>>>>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>>>>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >>>>>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>>>>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>>>>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters >>>>>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>>>>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>>>>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>>>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>>>>>>>> "communication" and "activity." >>>>>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from >>>>>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such >>>>>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or >>>>>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. >>>>>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >>>>>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>>>>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>>>>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>>>>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>>>>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >>>>>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >>>>>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>>>>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>>>>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>>>>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>>>>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>>>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >>>>>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >>>>>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>>>>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>>>>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>>>>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>>>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my >>>>>>>>> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a >>>>>>>>> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the >>>>>>>>> relation of objective activity and "communication". In the >>>>>>>>> same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is, >>>>>>>>> the active relation of the subject to the object and to >>>>>>>>> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, >>>>>>>>> indeed, any other, psychology. >>>>>>>>>> ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? ??? ????, >>>>>>>>> ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, ?????? ???, >>>>>>>>> ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? ??????????, >>>>>>>>> ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ????? >>>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>>>>> ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. >>>>>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >>>>>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>>>>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >>>>>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>>>>>>>> English text >>>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>>>>> and read it to the end :-). >>>>>>>>>> ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >>>>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>>>> ????????????>>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> >>>>>>>>>> ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? >>>>>>>>> ??????????? ???????? >>>>>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ >>>>>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% >>>>>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% >>>>>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% >>>>>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% >>>>>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% >>>>>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 >>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al >>>>>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more interesting, >>>>>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before >>>>>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? (replica >>>>>>>>> aside) :-) >>>>>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is >>>>>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical approach, >>>>>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its framework >>>>>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a >>>>>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the >>>>>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. >>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our discussions >>>>>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the >>>>>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. >>>>>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the principle >>>>>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism compatible >>>>>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is, it is >>>>>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and >>>>>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe >>>>>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to >>>>>>>>> these two principles something third, say - "subjectness"? >>>>>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and similar >>>>>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our inquiry >>>>>>>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we >>>>>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. But this >>>>>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, >>>>>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical >>>>>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that >>>>>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological theory, >>>>>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially >>>>>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently >>>>>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the >>>>>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical >>>>>>>>> verbiage>>>>>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ >>>>>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> >>>>>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical >>>>>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions between >>>>>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. >>>>>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for me too >>>>>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and >>>>>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central >>>>>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. >>>>>>>>>> Agitprop >>>>>>>>>> sticks >>>>>>>>>> in my teeth too, >>>>>>>>>> and I?d rather >>>>>>>>>> compose >>>>>>>>>> romances for you - >>>>>>>>>> more profit in it >>>>>>>>>> and more charm. >>>>>>>>>> But I >>>>>>>>>> subdued >>>>>>>>>> myself, >>>>>>>>>> setting my heel >>>>>>>>>> on the throat >>>>>>>>>> of my own song. >>>>>>>>>> Vladimir Mayakovski >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ? ??? >>>>>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>>>>> ? ????? ?????, >>>>>>>>>> ? ??? ?? >>>>>>>>>> ???????? >>>>>>>>>> ??????? ?? ??? ? >>>>>>>>>> ???????? ??? >>>>>>>>>> ? ??????????. >>>>>>>>>> ?? ? >>>>>>>>>> ???? >>>>>>>>>> ??????, >>>>>>>>>> ????????? >>>>>>>>>> ?? ????? >>>>>>>>>> ??????????? ?????. >>>>>>>>>> ???????? ?????????? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced >>>>>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to >>>>>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to >>>>>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, literally >>>>>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the abstract >>>>>>>>> to the concrete. >>>>>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting questions >>>>>>>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as >>>>>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented >>>>>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer >>>>>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed >>>>>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in >>>>>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF >>>>>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian >>>>>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>>>> ????????????>>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% >>>>>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . >>>>>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the >>>>>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is >>>>>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in >>>>>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange >>>>>>>>> reason was not published then or later. >>>>>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions, >>>>>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text >>>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. >>>>>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to >>>>>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the interaction >>>>>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no case >>>>>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two >>>>>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach >>>>>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my >>>>>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should >>>>>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious >>>>>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic of the >>>>>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the >>>>>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object >>>>>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not dealing >>>>>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the logic >>>>>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? >>>>>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the >>>>>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, "positing" >>>>>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, >>>>>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism >>>>>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense >>>>>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its active and >>>>>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic interaction, in >>>>>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active, >>>>>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There >>>>>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, but let us >>>>>>>>> return to this somehow later. >>>>>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation >>>>>>>>> work of 1988: >>>>>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation >>>>>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two >>>>>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun taken >>>>>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is >>>>>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It >>>>>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to >>>>>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) >>>>>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? >>>>>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant >>>>>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). >>>>>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation >>>>>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously >>>>>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital >>>>>>> activity. >>>>>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive relation, >>>>>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not >>>>>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated. >>>>>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism does not >>>>>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with >>>>>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence. >>>>>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not >>>>>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be >>>>>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the organism >>>>>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing >>>>>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into >>>>>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it >>>>>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of >>>>>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive >>>>>>> relation.? >>>>>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and >>>>>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the >>>>>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's >>>>>>>>> "addressing" to another person. >>>>>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered >>>>>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to try to >>>>>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness >>>>>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has been and >>>>>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology >>>>>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and >>>>>>> Ilyenkov. >>>>>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If we want >>>>>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the >>>>>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the >>>>>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers >>>>>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of >>>>>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to >>>>>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical >>>>>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to choose one >>>>>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first >>>>>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a >>>>>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course >>>>>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic >>>>>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".?the human >>>>>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single >>>>>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the >>>>>>>>> social relations.. " >>>>>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's >>>>>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely >>>>>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to >>>>>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical psychology >>>>>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx, then >>>>>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely >>>>>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with >>>>>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of them it >>>>>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place, >>>>>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be >>>>>>>>> solved by ourselves. >>>>>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this >>>>>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A >>>>>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was >>>>>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly >>>>>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented >>>>>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first, second >>>>>>>>> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas >>>>>>>>> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was >>>>>>>>> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other >>>>>>>>> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas >>>>>>>>> "Leningraders" were for "communication". >>>>>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our >>>>>>>>> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a literal >>>>>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our >>>>>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a >>>>>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the >>>>>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered something >>>>>>>>> rather indecent. >>>>>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of >>>>>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also >>>>>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory, >>>>>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by organizing >>>>>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was >>>>>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was >>>>>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of >>>>>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of >>>>>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a >>>>>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader >>>>>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in >>>>>>>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of >>>>>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of scientific >>>>>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in >>>>>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the >>>>>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters >>>>>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's >>>>>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE >>>>>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. >>>>>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to >>>>>>>>> "communication" and "activity." >>>>>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category, >>>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then for us >>>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will >>>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can >>>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including >>>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that >>>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented >>>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication from the >>>>>>>>> object oriented activity, which is an attribute property >>>>>>>>> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, >>>>>>>>> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we >>>>>>>>> will never get life or object oriented activity even with >>>>>>>>> the greatest diligence. >>>>>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but a fact >>>>>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive >>>>>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and >>>>>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first >>>>>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level, >>>>>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex dialectic >>>>>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the course >>>>>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced. >>>>>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external >>>>>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, >>>>>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, >>>>>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a >>>>>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man. >>>>>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive Activity" >>>>>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are taken not >>>>>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of >>>>>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as >>>>>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s >>>>>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. >>>>>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my diploma >>>>>>>>> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist >>>>>>>>> theoretical solution to the question of the relation of >>>>>>>>> objective activity and "communication". In the same time, >>>>>>>>> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active >>>>>>>>> relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is >>>>>>>>> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed, >>>>>>>>> any other, psychology. >>>>>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most suitable >>>>>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, >>>>>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem of the >>>>>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large >>>>>>>>> English text >>>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ >>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS >>>>>>>>> and read it to the end :-). >>>>>>>>>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN >>>>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? ???????????? >>>>>>>>> ????????????>>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ >>>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ >>>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% >>>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ >>>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% >>>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% >>>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% >>>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> >>>>>>>>>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short >>>>>>>>> English one >>>>>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ >>>>>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% >>>>>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% >>>>>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% >>>>>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% >>>>>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% >>>>>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. >>>>>>>>>> Sasha > > > From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Tue Oct 17 16:26:04 2017 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 00:26:04 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: job-CSU Sacramento In-Reply-To: <262AA420-C566-4810-8A1D-2B1156CDA2D7@manchester.ac.uk> References: <262AA420-C566-4810-8A1D-2B1156CDA2D7@manchester.ac.uk> Message-ID: To a systems person, it is worse than that. It is a sad, impoverished distinction and merely indicates the state of affairs! Still reading people here, some good conversations going on. Best, Huw On 17 October 2017 at 22:35, Julian Williams < julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > Lynda > > Always depressed to see researchers described as 'qualitative' presumably > as opposed to 'quantitative' and therefore presumed to be innumerate, > instead perhaps of being illiterate. > > Sigh. > > Julian > > > On 17 Oct 2017, at 21:06, Stone, Lynda wrote: > > > > > > Hello All! > > > > Here is a description of job opening for a qualitative researcher > > grounded in human development and interested in educational settings? > > > > > > Responsibilities include: > > ? Teaching undergraduate and graduate courses in Child/Human > Development, specifically courses related to qualitative research > methodology and areas of interest; > > ? Maintaining a rigorous program of research related to school- and/or > community-based qualitative research; > > ? Supervising and sponsoring student scholarship; assisting with > advising and curriculum development/assessment; > > ? Working collegially with other faculty; and > > ? Contributing to service in the department, college, university, and > profession. > > > > > > Required Qualifications > > > > ? An earned Ph.D. in Child/Human Development, Applied Developmental > Psychology, Developmental Psychology, Developmental Science, Education, and > > Psychology, or an equivalent program. ABD candidates will be considered. > If ABD, all degree requirements must be completed by August 2018 > > ? Specialization in qualitative research methods with a strong emphasis > in developmental theory. > > > > > > Preferred Qualifications > > > > ? Demonstrated leadership potential; > > ? Interpersonal skills; > > ? Ability to work with children, students, families, and communities > representing diverse populations from diverse backgrounds; > > ? Demonstrated experience and effectiveness in college level, > undergraduate, and/or graduate level teaching; > > ? Clearly defined interdisciplinary program of qualitative research and > publication focusing on children, adolescents, and/or young adults, or > demonstrated potential for establishing such a record; > > ? Experience in educational settings and/or curriculum development. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lynda Stone, Ph.D. > > Professor > > Child Development > > CSUS/UC-Links After-school Program Director > > > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Oct 17 16:40:04 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:40:04 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: job-CSU Sacramento In-Reply-To: References: <262AA420-C566-4810-8A1D-2B1156CDA2D7@manchester.ac.uk> Message-ID: Hey fella's, ease up! Quality counts! :-) There are even members of this list who have used the distinction in their writing. I am sure you will find great candidates for the job, Lynda. I hope the nearby fires get people in California to increase the quantity of high quality conservation practices. Warm, but not burning in So Cal. mike On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > To a systems person, it is worse than that. It is a sad, impoverished > distinction and merely indicates the state of affairs! > > Still reading people here, some good conversations going on. > > Best, > Huw > > On 17 October 2017 at 22:35, Julian Williams < > julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > > > Lynda > > > > Always depressed to see researchers described as 'qualitative' presumably > > as opposed to 'quantitative' and therefore presumed to be innumerate, > > instead perhaps of being illiterate. > > > > Sigh. > > > > Julian > > > > > On 17 Oct 2017, at 21:06, Stone, Lynda > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello All! > > > > > > Here is a description of job opening for a qualitative researcher > > > grounded in human development and interested in educational settings? > > > > > > > > > Responsibilities include: > > > ? Teaching undergraduate and graduate courses in Child/Human > > Development, specifically courses related to qualitative research > > methodology and areas of interest; > > > ? Maintaining a rigorous program of research related to school- and/or > > community-based qualitative research; > > > ? Supervising and sponsoring student scholarship; assisting with > > advising and curriculum development/assessment; > > > ? Working collegially with other faculty; and > > > ? Contributing to service in the department, college, university, and > > profession. > > > > > > > > > Required Qualifications > > > > > > ? An earned Ph.D. in Child/Human Development, Applied Developmental > > Psychology, Developmental Psychology, Developmental Science, Education, > and > > > Psychology, or an equivalent program. ABD candidates will be > considered. > > If ABD, all degree requirements must be completed by August 2018 > > > ? Specialization in qualitative research methods with a strong emphasis > > in developmental theory. > > > > > > > > > Preferred Qualifications > > > > > > ? Demonstrated leadership potential; > > > ? Interpersonal skills; > > > ? Ability to work with children, students, families, and communities > > representing diverse populations from diverse backgrounds; > > > ? Demonstrated experience and effectiveness in college level, > > undergraduate, and/or graduate level teaching; > > > ? Clearly defined interdisciplinary program of qualitative research and > > publication focusing on children, adolescents, and/or young adults, or > > demonstrated potential for establishing such a record; > > > ? Experience in educational settings and/or curriculum development. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lynda Stone, Ph.D. > > > Professor > > > Child Development > > > CSUS/UC-Links After-school Program Director > > > > > > > > From ablunden@mira.net Tue Oct 17 16:59:06 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 10:59:06 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <1508190552093.73064@iped .uio.no> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Haydi, my seemingly "rapid answer" reflects the fact that my answer came out of 50 years of studying Marx and /Capital/, so it is certainly not "off the cuff." Although Marx never used the term "unit of analysis" (only "economic germ cell") Vygotsky derived this idea from his study of Marx's /Capital/ and he was perfectly correct in doing so. It remains one of his most original contributions to science. I don't know where A N Leontyev got his idea about having 2 or 3 units of analysis for activity, but it was a brilliant and original insight. I don't believe that ANL saw that his idea was prefigured by Marx and Vygotsky, but I don't know and it is not important. A study of /Capital /reveals that Marx used two units of analysis, corresponding to two levels of activity. In the first 3 chapters, the unit is an exchange of commodities C-M-C, which elucidates the formation of value in the activity of the market. In chapter 4, he introduces the unit of capital M-C-M' which thereafter forms the units of analysis of capital. When I first mentioned this to Alfredo I pointed out that Marx's analysis of the uniform rate of profit relies on this unit, so I followed up with a quote in which Marx (not Andy) talks of "capitals" and competition between them in the formation of a rate of profit. One of the side-benefits of identifying the unit of capital as a firm, is that it makes it quite explicit that *capital is a form of human activity*, not something extramundane which somehow magically expands itself. None of this is theology, but important methodological insights which all of us here, who have had the benefit of studying Vygotsky and Leontyev, can bring to our understanding of Marx. It is about ideas not people. This fact that there can be more than one unit of analysis in a science is not novel. In biology, it is not only the cell but also the organism which are units. Darwin's theory of evolution (along with the discovery of the cell, the founding idea of modern biology) depends on the organism (rather than the cell or the species) as the "molar unit" of biology. "Species" is a unit at a third level, with many species together forming an eco-system. These are issues of science not theology because every graduate student or researcher can use Vygotsky's concept of "unit of analysis" for original research. If all they know is "Vygotsky's unit of analysis was word meaning" there is no possibility of using this concept in their own research. If a methodological insight is going to be useful, it is essential to have at least several examples of its use to generalise from. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 18/10/2017 2:00 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > > Dear all, > > From where I stopped : > > > --My focus was on rejection of the existence of a > contradiction between ANL?s use of singular/plural > activity/activities and arguing that CAPITAL is not to be > torn up into pieces/parts. Talking of moments and wholes > does not necessarily mean involving units of analysis. > > > -- No, Alfredo. A unit of capital is a firm (or company). > > > Am I confused? Or can I justify myself in attributing a > rush for a rapid answer which might be incorrect? A whole > investment in what is to be proved otherwise just on the > next post? I mean Alfredo?s ?a commodity as the unit of > analysis of the Capital". This time we should take a firm > with specific connotation inovatively coined as ?a > commodity?. > > Is not this to justify our previous notes? In such cases > we say ?A hen has just one leg?. At one time , Modern > State is based on the Whole idea in contrast to old > Medieval State. At another time , Aggregates are supreme. > Has anybody seen Leontiev taking Firms Proper as > Activities proper? > > > In the USSR , there were NOT firms , only the State. Andy > does not say here if his State is whole or aggregate. But > just one can guess he takes it as a Whole. For our > discussion no problem if he takes it as an aggregate > taking into account that a whole needs moments an > aggregate parts. But what is he referring to when he says > Leontiev takes micro and Molar in one complex? > Inferencially he might have taken a firm as micro in > contrast to Molar the more so that he has already issued a > firm as an activity But But dear Andy if I?m not so > confused even mad , you said in the USSR there were no > firms no individual activities for that matter ?? What > micros then are you referring to that Leontiev too has > drawn it into his discussion? Would it not be better for > you to argue that poor L was in total loss of finding the > other leg of our Hen? > > > --Andy?If you are so kind to take this as a moderate > critique , I then dare repeat if you are an orthodox > Marxist (also my mentor on that) why you in a brief span > of time let yourself jump up from a thousand times ?I?m an > activity theorist? to a point of suppressing it as sort of > a null/void? ?Now that the science of Linguistics has > progressed so far , talk of activity has gone into waste > of time?. ?not the proper quote but at least near to it. > This was just short of a multitude. > > > I wonder if this one suffices you to be an orthodox > Marxist for your addressee to be a counter one . > Incidentally I wanted to tell you there are much evidence > that you are a Marxist why then you bring up those words > against Marx? Many years back I asked you : Are you then > Hegelian? You said , No! I mean at the time also there was > overtone and exaggeration on Hegel. > > > --Damn! Commodity exchange is the unit of burgeons > society... I have to study more! Thanks Andy > > "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist > mode of production prevails, presents itself as ?an > immense accumulation of commodities,?[1] *its unit being a > single commodity*. Our investigation must therefore begin > with the analysis of a commodity" > > > This must have been taken from Marx. And please Alfredo , > give us the footnote for [1] > > > Is not this ?immense accumulation of commodities? the very > Capital? If positive , then the unit not a ?firm? but a > commodity. > > > Because a commodity (not any goods or product for > subsistence or barter) as to the nature of its definition > has the antinomy within itself and again to its very > nature is forced to be exchanged and if my memory helps , > Marx even after entering the discussion of the exchange > phenomenon , returns the discussion back to the existence > of potentially both relative and equivalent to one single > commodity. > > > > --Yes , yes . What yes :-) ? There's the 'Unit of analysis > is a commodity'. ? to its roots , to its source , *to its > unit* ?? ?but capital ? with capital? > > ? just to preserve this for later discussions : ...in > speech arising in collaborative activity. > > > > Your point in the first paragraph is what I was trying to > convey to Haidy, to see if there is room there for common > ground between your positions. ? > > > > --Yes , and this was my answer : First my point in the > last paragraph was not which one is the unit of analysis. > But that why is it we cannot use such sentences or phrases > altogether. For that matter, I concluded that wholes as to > their nature are not susceptible to get torn up. They are > contiguous phenomena. > > And I should add that I really do not find myself in a > position to receive such kind favours. Thank you! The > problem is either I have not read enough to understand > which I accept generally or that authorities see > themselves too legitimate to think of their occasional > drawbacks and then not to see the dwarfs smaller than they > deserve to be. > > > Capitals are units of capital. The only whole is the world > market, within which units of capital grow and shrink, > consume one another and so on. A capital (i.e. a firm) is > not a "whole" in the true sense of the word, and I would > have an issue with anyone who wants to treat a firm as a > "system of activity" if there were any implication that this > means a "closed system." > > > --I just want to ask Alfredo if he quoted Marx and if as > he or any other folk understood it , the unit of > > analysis is a commodity. Presently no judgment. > > > > --Sasha arrives! He confirms the unit of analysis to be a > substantial commodity. > > We should have more of him. Let?s wait. > > > > I read Marx saying the same when writing this in the > German Ideology: > > > "The production of ideas, of conceptions, of > consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the > material activity and the material intercourse of men-the > language of real life." > > > ?And then again, > > > "Language is as old as consciousness, language > is practical, real consciousness that exists for other men > as well, and only therefore does it also exist for me; > language, like consciousness, only arises from the need, > the necessity, of intercourse with other men." > > > I do not see here some hierarchy of primaries and > secondaries, but rather immanence, humanity as a > productive force that has practical and communicative > aspects. But I am happy to be in the process of being > corrected about this. > > > > --I wouldn?t think Sasha consciously mixes up exchanges of > goods with exchanges of commodities Alfredo. And as you > note , > > it depends on what social relation of what socio-economic > formation we base our argument . > > > > ?an orderliness that is self-generating and irreducible to > any of the communicating 'parties' ?irrespective of > whether these parties are engaged in any human material > productive activity or not or if their communication could > have any relationship to that process generally if not > locally or temporally--or their messages. > > > > Don?t you think it sounds a bit dualistic? I addsomething > to your sentence please see if you again could confirm it. > > > I remember the travel by plane all intermittent talk , > etc. Those talks were all mixed up with actions processes > affecting each other as Andy says. One could think of > partial independence of consciousness but not ultimate > segregation and separation. This was reserved for this > moment : Andy : ? just to preserve this for later > discussions : ...in speech arising in collaborative activity. > > But you also remarked : activity constituted in > communication. I talked about it. And about historical > essential precedence. But now generally intertwined. > > > > I read Marx saying the same when writing this in the > German Ideology: > > "The production of ideas, of conceptions, of > consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the > material activity and the material intercourse of men-the > language of real life." > > > Is the language of real life here equal to the very > self-generating independent communication you mentioned? > > ?And then again, > > "Language is as old as consciousness, language > is practical, real consciousness that exists for other men > as well, and only therefore does it also exist for me; > language, like consciousness, only arises from the need, > the necessity, of intercourse with other men." > > I do not see here some hierarchy of primaries and > secondaries, but rather immanence, humanity as a > productive force that has practical and communicative > aspects. But I am happy to be in the process of being > corrected about this. > > > > This is also a follow-up from the above. What about 'at > first'? Humanity thinks and speaks but further than the > Commune humans as relating to their relevant classes > either toil or exploit or double-deal staggering between > the two. > > > --To our time zone , I began in the morning and now is > night. Andy?s last message needs a fresher mind. > > Now good night! > > I hope this reaches you non-crumbled non-clattered. I > won't be able to view it. > > Best > > Haydi > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Andy Blunden > *To:* Alfredo Jornet Gil ; "eXtended > Mind, Culture, Activity" ; Mike > Cole ; ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? > ; Ivan Uemlianin > ; Martin John Packer > ; Alexander Surmava > > *Sent:* Tuesday, 17 October 2017, 1:46:24 > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity and communication > > The idea of producing for exchange being something > essential outside of a world in which products are > exchanged is to my mind something as curious as something > being a hammer outside of a world in which there are > nails. In preparing the conceptual foundation of > /Capital/, Marx wrote the /Grundrisse /and in the > Introduction he makes clear that production, distribution, > exchange and consumption form a unity, a whole, and have > to be analysed as such: > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc2 > > "Thus production, distribution, exchange and > consumption form a regular syllogism; production is > the generality, distribution and exchange the > particularity, and consumption the singularity in > which the whole is joined together." > > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 17/10/2017 8:49 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > So, not commodity exchange, but commodity production, > Sasha. That is of course in line with everything else you > can read in Marx, including the introductory paragraphs of > the German Ideology, and sounds right. Although I did not > think that 'exchange of goods' was synonymous > with 'exchange of commodities,' It is a whole different > thing, and what you are saying is that these are different > because of the type of relations of production. Sounds > right to me. > > There are theories that take communication to be an > exchange of words, or of signs, or of ideas as you write, > a 'negotiation of meanings' others say. But there are > alternatives to that too, some of which characterise the > communicative relation as a productive force, an > orderliness that is self-generating and irreducible to any > of the communicating 'parties' or their messages. Led by > W-M Roth, we have written about this. Taking that > perspective, and this may be because I am 'only' > a student, and one much less qualified than the one you > speak about in your message, it becomes very difficult for > me to have communication to be somehow secondary. As it's > been suggested here. I feel more comfortable thinking of > 'productive activity' or object oriented activity, as > manifesting both as practical activity and > as communicative activity; but not first the one and only > later the other. > > I read Marx saying the same when writing this in the > German Ideology: > > "The production of ideas, of conceptions, of > consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the > material activity and the material intercourse of men-the > language of real life." > > ?And then again, > > "Language is as old as consciousness, language > is practical, real consciousness that exists for other men > as well, and only therefore does it also exist for me; > language, like consciousness, only arises from the need, > the necessity, of intercourse with other men." > > I do not see here some hierarchy of primaries and > secondaries, but rather immanence, humanity as a > productive force that has practical and communicative > aspects. But I am happyto be in the process of being > corrected about this. > > Alfredo > > PS: The text by Ilyenkov that Sasha refers to is available > at Marxists.org, here: > https://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/abstract/index.htm > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Alexander Surmava > > *Sent:* 16 October 2017 17:00 > *To:* ablunden@mira.net ; > eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Alfredo Jornet Gil; Mike > Cole; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Ivan Uemlianin; Martin John Packer > *Subject:* ???: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity and communication > > Dear colleagues, > > Excuse me for the delay in responding to your previous > posts about Leontiev and Vygotsky. The problems that we > are discussing are so serious that it takes a long time to > think about them and formulate an answer. Especially in > English :-). > > Therefore, the main answer I hope to put on the XMCA no > earlier than tomorrow. > > But suddenly the discussion turned into an extremely > interesting side. I mean analysis of the logic of "Das > Kapital". It is discussed what can and should be properly > considered the unit of analysis of both Capital and ?Das > Kapital?, the world system of capitalism and its > reflection in Marx? theoretic masterpiece. At least two > hypotheses have been voiced. The first is that such a unit > is a separate " business", a capitalist firm. And the > second, that the unit of analysis is the exchange of goods. > > I think that I can hardly agree with both hypotheses. > It seems to me that for Marx the first, most abstract > stage of analysis is in no case the exchange of goods, but > the commodity itself. And not an abstract commodity, but a > commodity produced under capitalistic relations. > Therefore, the unit of analysis is strictly speaking the > very production of such a commodity. > > The exchange of goods occurs not only under capitalism, > but also under slavery, and under feudalism. This is not > an independent, not substantial concept. The exchange > depends on the mode of production, and not vice versa. > > The same can be applied to "communication" in psychology, > to the "exchange" of ideas, caresses or beatings. This > communication does not occur due to certain immanent laws > of interpersonal communication, but entirely depends on > the collaborative object-oriented activity (predmetnoy > deyatelnosty), collective labor of historically determined > individuals. In turn, the nature of their collective work, > depends not on the distribution of genes in their genomes, > but on the distribution of the means of production, on the > distribution of labor instruments. Let us emphasize, not > on the distribution of verbal signs, not on ideology, but > on the distribution of the most material weapons of human > activity. > > With communist greetings :-) , > Sasha > > P.S. By the way, I enthusiastically welcome the fact that > our discussion has switched from discussing Vygotsky's > "units" to discussing the most abstract category of "Das > Kapital" of Marx, that is, from a pale copy, to the > original. By the way, in the future it might be > interesting to re-read the "Dialectics of the abstract and > concrete in scientific and theoretical thinking" by EV > Ilyenkov. This work contains an elaborate analysis of the > method of Marx, in comparison with which Vygotsky's > methodological reflexion seems to be something quite > student-like. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *??:* Andy Blunden > > *????:* Alfredo Jornet Gil > ; "xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu" > > > *??????????:* ???????????, 16 ??????? 2017 15:51 > *????:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and > communication > > Capitals are units of capital. The only whole is the world > market, within which units of capital grow and shrink, > consume one another and so on. A capital (i.e. a firm) is > not a "whole" in the true sense of the word, and I would > have an issue with anyone who wants to treat a firm as a > "system of activity" if there were any implication that this > means a "closed system." > > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 16/10/2017 11:42 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > > > Your point in the first paragraph is what I was trying to > > convey to Haidy, to see if there is room there for common > > ground between your positions. ? > > > > Alfredo > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Andy Blunden > > > *Sent:* 16 October 2017 14:39 > > *To:* Alfredo Jornet Gil; > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > > activity and communication > > > > > > Yes, yes, Alfredo! But what is often overlooked is that > > the aim of Marx's research is not commodity exchange (in > > itself a harmless business) but capital. But he does not > > *start* with capital, but goes down to its roots, its > > source, in the circulation of commodities. > > > > Compare with Vygotsky's analysis of the intellect > > (thinking). Word meanings are *not* the subject matter of > > Vygotsky's research (who gives a damn!?), but concepts! > > But he does not start with concepts, but goes down to its > > roots, its source, in speech arising in collaborative > > activity. Actually, AN Leontyev missed this, as can be > > seen in his trenchant attack on Vygotsky in his ?Study of > > the Environment in the Pedological Works of L. S. Vygotsky". > > > > Andy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 16/10/2017 11:31 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > >> Damn! Commodity exchange is the unit of burgeons > society... I have to study more! Thanks Andy > >> > >> "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist > mode of production prevails, presents itself as ?an > immense accumulation of commodities,?[1] its unit being a > single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin > with the analysis of a commodity" > >> > >> Alfredo > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > on behalf of > Andy Blunden > > >> Sent: 16 October 2017 14:22 > >> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity > and communication > >> > >> Just to illustrate that I am being an orthodox Marxist > here, > >> from Chapter 10, Vol. 3 of Capital: > >> > >> "In the case of capitals of average, or approximately > >> average, composition, the price of production is thus > >> the same or almost the same as the value, and the profit > >> the same as the surplus-value produced by them. All > >> other capitals, of whatever composition, tend toward > >> this average under pressure of competition. But since > >> the capitals of average composition are of the same, or > >> approximately the same, structure as the average social > >> capital, all capitals have the tendency, regardless of > >> the surplus-value produced by them, to realize the > >> average profit, rather than their own surplus-value in > >> the price of their commodity, i.e., to realize the > >> prices of production." > >> > >> Andy > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> Andy Blunden > >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > >> On 16/10/2017 11:18 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > >>> No, Alfredo. A unit of capital is a firm (or company). > It is > >>> impossible to explain the formation of a rate of > profit (at > >>> least as Marx does in /Capital/) without the conception of > >>> units of capital, namely, firms and the competition > between > >>> them. Firms are of course, what Engestrom would call a > >>> "system of activity" or I would call a "project" and > >>> Leontyev almost could call an activity. But in the USSR > >>> there were no firms, only the state. It is perhaps A N > >>> Leonytev's greatest discovery that there are both > micro and > >>> molar units in any complex process. True in Psychology and > >>> true in political economy. Whereas exchange of commodities > >>> is an artefact-mediated action, a firm is an activity, a > >>> specific aggregate of actions, directed towards the > >>> quantitative maximisation of the value of the unit of > capital. > >>> > >>> English is not a perfect language either. : ) The word > >>> "consciousness" has the unfortunate connotation of being a > >>> mass noun (or continuous substance) whereas it is know > only, > >>> of course, in individual "consciousnesses" or "minds." But > >>> it sounds so clumsy to say "a consciousness." > >>> > >>> Andy > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> Andy Blunden > >>> > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > >>> On 16/10/2017 11:07 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > >>>> Haydi, > >>>> > >>>> I think Andy does not mean 'one capital' versus > 'several capitals', for, if I read Andy adequately, > Capital is for him not a unit but rather the whole of > which commodity exchange is the unit. Thus, the germ cell > of Capital is thus not Capital, or 'a' Capital, which you > seem to attribute to Andy; just as I don't think he is > arguing that there is consciousness, and then many > consciousnesses. So it may be that you two agree more than > disagree, judging by your last paragraph. > >>>> > >>>> Whether his position on singular and plurals is more > or less adequate than another positions, that I leave it > up to the discussion. > >>>> > >>>> Alfredo > >>>> ________________________________________ > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > on behalf of > ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? > > >>>> Sent: 16 October 2017 09:45 > >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Andy Blunden > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity and communication > >>>> > >>>> Thank you David for your explanation! Though for me > it needs more than one read. > >>>> > >>>> The point was whether use of activity and activities > in Leontiev is a contradiction. Whoever L was and whatever > he believed in , he was not so negligent to the point of > posing activity first and immediately after that > recounting 'activities'. Translation ruled out a committed > error. Then such a blundering display must have a > justification rather than a misunderstanding in comprehension. > >>>> > >>>> In one sense all things are related. The more so with > the Monistic View. We have so many corporate and > incorporate things , two of them so problematic > communication and practical activity since Descartes and > we are determined to avoid Dualism and refer and return > all phenomena to that same thing , the one substance. In > the actuality of the world , there's nothing discrete , > that is , absolutely unrelated. Is that pretext for us not > to see this unbounded versatility and hues and dues as > distinct coloring? Maybe one of the ways was for man to > let Nature go unrestrained?? But man also did not come of > its own will. > >>>> > >>>> The sole way destined or open to Man was of its > Nature to engage with the surrounding. To deal with it > sensually and subjectively/agently. Then Man in one time > interpreted all phenomena as they appeared to him. But he > grew up further than his infantile period. He learnt to > delve into matters , go deeper and deeper. With one > spectacle (plane) he observed how that single substance > let its attributes multiply themselves into different > shapes and colors and Modes. With another plane of the one > spectacle observed the variation of the Modes themselves. > I mean Ontology and Epistemology not yet separate from > each other as I used a pair of planes for that matter. > >>>> > >>>> Then we usually don't use a nail-clipper for > alterations and manipulations in Genes. Or devices for > Genes for our feeding and nutrition. It is then within > these constraints that corporate and incorporate phenomena > differ. Singles and plurals differ. Discrete and the > indivisible differ. Parts and Moments differ. Wholes and > mere entities differ. A process and a product resulting > from that process differ. No justification to interchange > them because of the use of A in front of them. > >>>> > >>>> I wonder if this is true for others too. For me it's > difficult to accept to say "this capital that capital" > "those 8 capitals united" "capitals of the world dissolved > into unanimity". If I'm correct in this , it's , I think , > because Capital is a Whole , coming out of a long process > of functions and disfunctions , moments of circulations > and transient stagnation , booms and boosts and drawbacks > and failures. The moment of its conception in the exchange > of commodities up to the discovery of the private > appropriation of the surplus value to the point of > harnessing every means to penetrate each tight corner of > the big World. > >>>> > >>>> Best > >>>> Haydi > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> From: David Kellogg > > >>>> To: Andy Blunden >; "eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity" > > >>>> Sent: Monday, 16 October 2017, 2:21:12 > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity and communication > >>>> > >>>> Of course, neither an object nor a process is > discrete (or even, as Andy > >>>> says, "discreet"). Who can tell me where a mountain > river ends and the > >>>> alluvial plain begins? Certainly not Cezanne or the > phenomenologists who so > >>>> loved him. Yet a mountain is most assuredly an > object, just as surely > >>>> as climbing the mountain to ascertain its degree of > montagnitude is a > >>>> process. > >>>> > >>>> This last week I've been struggling through the > "Curriculum Reforms" > >>>> wrought by three right wing governments in Norway, > Finland, and New > >>>> Zealand. Like Catalonia, these are all countries > where unpopular coalitions > >>>> of right parties are replacing a much more popular > but obviously > >>>> unsuccessful social democratic coalition of left > parties. In Norway and in > >>>> Finland, the coalition actually includes the far > right, neo-fascist, > >>>> anti-immigrant parties, and in New Zealand it > includes the ACT, that is, an > >>>> "association of consumers and taxpayers" whose main > interest is cutting > >>>> education budgets, starting by making teachers and > students fight each > >>>> other for scarce resources in the form of "block grants". > >>>> > >>>> Now, all of these governments are more or less bound > by something called > >>>> DeSeCo, which is short for Describe and Select > Competences. This is because > >>>> right-wing ideology sees education not as a public > good but as a commodity, > >>>> to be judged by tangible results and priced > accordingly. This presents a > >>>> real theoretical problem for right-wingers, because > they ALSO see that > >>>> "flexible labor markets" and "entrepreneurial spirit" > means that there > >>>> isn't any way of deciding on what skills or even what > knowledge the > >>>> "economy of the future" will demand. > >>>> > >>>> We can see this in the emphasis on "competence". > Competence is not a thing > >>>> or a process, and it is neither discrete nor > discreet. Of course, if you > >>>> are a linguist, competence is something Chomsky > thought of in the sixties, > >>>> an abstract form of knowledge in a hypothetical > native speaker-hearer in an > >>>> imaginary homogenous speech community. It is > "discrete" in the sense of > >>>> being nowhere and nowhen connectible to performance > in any way. It is > >>>> therefore "discreet" in the sense of being > untestable--as soon as you test > >>>> it, you have a form of performance, not competence. > It's like standing in > >>>> front of a classroom with a picture of a guy swimming > and trying to teach > >>>> the expression "i can swim". What you have in the > picture is not "I can > >>>> swim"; it's manifestly "he is swimming". > >>>> > >>>> But in DeSeCo, you get these lists of competences, > which are set up as if > >>>> they were discrete so you can list them on a > Powerpoint slide and sell them > >>>> to ministries of education. And the real selling > point is that, on the one > >>>> hand, because they are all "meta-skills" and > "meta-knowledges", they don't > >>>> have any practical outcome or real commitment to a > job and a livelihood. > >>>> And on the other, they sound terribly powerful when > you phrase them as > >>>> "learning to learn" or "transversal competence" or > "meta-cognitive skills" > >>>> or something like that. Jobs, in other words, are > discretionary. After > >>>> centuries of promising jobs and livelhood in return > for school and boredom, > >>>> the Western economies have decided that sticks are > cheaper than carrots, > >>>> and the thing to do is simply to rule people who > don't have educational > >>>> certificates out of the job market rather than try to > provide > >>>> actual know-how and factual know-that. > >>>> > >>>> Here are my four favorites (i.e. the four that we > stress in our own > >>>> curricular reform here in South Korea): > >>>> > >>>> interpersonal competence (sociability, the ability to > 'be alone with > >>>> others' as Hughlings Jackson put it) > >>>> cultural competence (enculturation, the ability to > understand traditions, > >>>> mores, and norms) > >>>> creative competence (intelligence, innovation, yadda > yadda) > >>>> individual competence (the ability to dress yourself, > feed yourself, and > >>>> show up for an interview where you will not be > offered a job) > >>>> > >>>> Vygotsky, as usual, has a better idea--it's a > mountain. We just turn the > >>>> DeSeCO PPT upside down. Then we add each > competence---freedom, creative > >>>> intelligence, encultured habits and tastes, and > instiinctive > >>>> sociability--as a superstructure erected on the > basis of the previous one: > >>>> > >>>> free will (the ability to make choices that are not > necessarily intelligent > >>>> or habitual or instinctive) > >>>> intelligence (the ability to make choices that are > not habitual or > >>>> instinctive but nevertheless adaptive) > >>>> enculturation (the ability to make choices that are > not instinctive but > >>>> conform to the choices that have proven successful in > the now socialized > >>>> environment) > >>>> instinct (the ability to make choices that are > responsive to the > >>>> environment and which conform to the choices that > have proven successful in > >>>> phylogenesis) > >>>> > >>>> Are theses objects? Of course, if we say so. And > processes? Well, how else > >>>> could they have come about? What they are not, > however, is either > >>>> "discrete" or "discreet": they are clearly linked to > each other, and they > >>>> are all linked, through the lower layer, to > adaptations ot the environment. > >>>> > >>>> And there's the rub--where the rubber meets the road. > The real question, > >>>> for our teachers and for our children, is about what > will happen to them > >>>> now that these competences can no longer be redeemed > in jobs. Will the > >>>> anti-Faustian bargain of exchanging your youth for a > >>>> stable middle-aged livelihood survive? > >>>> > >>>> David Kellogg > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Haydi, you say "AN activity is not a thing ; it's a > >>>>> process." I wonder then what is a thing which is not > also a > >>>>> process? (I interpret "thing" as meaning "something > >>>>> discrete," otherwise your objection makes no sense.) The > >>>>> point is that Hegel does not make this dichotomy - every > >>>>> thing is also a process and vice versa. That a > process is > >>>>> also discreet is important because it is only thanks > to its > >>>>> discreteness that we can cognise the process and in fact > >>>>> only thanks to its discreteness that a process can > affect > >>>>> anything else. To speak of processes which are not also > >>>>> discrete is to speak in abstractions. > >>>>> > >>>>> On this point, when Hegel puts ideas above matter, > it has to > >>>>> be realised that for Hegel "ideas" are social > practices - he > >>>>> is simply place human practice at the centre of > human life > >>>>> and its comprehension, rather than the mechanical and > >>>>> chemical processes of Nature. If you think that > "ideas" are > >>>>> simply chimera inside our heads, then, of course, > Hegel's > >>>>> idealism seems like madness. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, all the Marxists have blasted Hegel. As they must. > >>>>> Otherwise they must end up advocates of Constitutional > >>>>> Monarchy. But while Marx uses almost every mention > he makes > >>>>> of Hegel to criticise him, often in extreme terms, > it can go > >>>>> unnoticed the extent to which in practice Marx > follows Hegel > >>>>> in philosophy. Of course Marx is not equal to Hegel, but > >>>>> simple formulae do not contribute to understanding > the relation. > >>>>> > >>>>> Andy > >>>>> > >>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> Andy Blunden > >>>>> > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > >>>>> On 15/10/2017 6:51 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > >>>>>> Andy, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Let me first apologize to David Kellog because in > others' > >>>>>> wandering and perplexity it was he who in his > reading of > >>>>>> Gramsci's prison letters came across this point and > made > >>>>>> you not only accept the inappropriateness of Hegel's > >>>>>> headstand as Crowning every worldly affair deriving > from > >>>>>> the People's Heads "Idea" , "Absolute" but also > >>>>>> intensifying this point with more examples and > references > >>>>>> from Engels' "utopian versus genuine socialism" on your > >>>>>> part. Of course you've been helping us on many > occasions > >>>>>> and you're very welcome for this nothing to be denied. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> At this point we have no problem with translation. > >>>>>> Leontiev meant it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Suppose that ANL does not know "individual" which > is very > >>>>>> ambiguous because in what then one should seek the > >>>>>> embodiment of the "particular" and if one takes the > very > >>>>>> particular as individual , then everything gets > mixed up . > >>>>>> Then what about you who stick firmly on individual > >>>>>> discrete detached activities as an objection to Sasha's > >>>>>> sole ACTIVITY as theoretical understanding. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As you well know even AN activity is not a thing ; > it's a > >>>>>> process. And you once distinguished between GENERAL > WORK > >>>>>> ACTIVITY and LABOUR ACTIVITY or VALORIZATION ACTIVITY > >>>>>> which was quite right and timely though you > recently gave > >>>>>> differing definitions in no way harmonious to your > >>>>>> previous definitions. But the main problem is blending > >>>>>> clarity in expression with concrete in theory. No doubt > >>>>>> you're a Fan of Hegel. I should repeat myself : > Hegel is a > >>>>>> hero of theoretical concepts. In theorizing , and > for him > >>>>>> to explicate the Essence of Phenomena , he begins with > >>>>>> apparently concrete things as ABSTRACTS finally reaches > >>>>>> CONCRETE UNIVERSALS as concepts. And here we again very > >>>>>> surprisingly see you put your finger upon what you > should > >>>>>> have known in person is contrary to your own erudition. > >>>>>> Turning Hegel down as believing in discrete abstracts. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And now to his son's comment : What individual are you > >>>>>> pursuing? Your Hegel sees phenomena in their relations. > >>>>>> According to him and also according to ANL ACTIVITY > as a > >>>>>> unit of Life is Molar non-additive. He even does > not see > >>>>>> operations as single acts. It's a matter of the > angle of > >>>>>> vision not detachment and concreteness. If his son had > >>>>>> talked of concreteness in moments of activity , > then you > >>>>>> were right in your objections and oppositions. You > please > >>>>>> give us your last definition of activity here (not in > >>>>>> lengthy references) so that we can have a discerning > >>>>>> option. > >>>>>> So far to remove the problem we should accept > operations > >>>>>> are separately and independently carried out ; > actions in > >>>>>> their own are carried out ; activities are carried out > >>>>>> arbitrarily. And these are done to the realization > of man > >>>>>> as the ensemble of social relations based on some > >>>>>> infrastructure. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hegel's metaphor has been thrown back at him by Marx , > >>>>>> Engels , Lenin , Vygotsky , Ilyenko , and many > others. If > >>>>>> you like to stand above all Giants of Marxism , it's > >>>>>> something perfectly and absolutely Personal as you're > >>>>>> speaking out loud! Then why give us so many references. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Haydi > >>>>>> > >>>>>> P.S. Alfredo! Though you have my previous private > response > >>>>>> concerning the matters you pose I see myself > accountable > >>>>>> to rewrite them to the Public. Thanks! > >>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>> *From:* Andy Blunden > > >>>>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, 15 October 2017, 5:35:40 > >>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity > >>>>>> and communication > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Haydi, partly the problem with ANL's > >>>>>> philosophy-as-we-know-it is simply a product of its > >>>>>> translation into English. But partly it is also in his > >>>>>> philosophy. As Victor Kaptelinin first pointed out > (so far > >>>>>> as I know), ANL knows the universal and the > particular but > >>>>>> he does not know the individual. And his son's > comment that > >>>>>> ANL did not conceive of Activity as being discrete > proves > >>>>>> this to be the case. Thus his concept of Activity > is not a > >>>>>> fully concrete concept. And this is not a product of > >>>>>> translation. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As David Kellogg has kindly pointed out to me, it > was Hegel > >>>>>> who actually first introduced this metaphor of people > >>>>>> "walking (or standing) on their heads." Personally, > I don't > >>>>>> think it has ever helped anyone understand the > defect of > >>>>>> Hegel's philosophy to throw this metaphor back at > him. As > >>>>>> demonstrated in this issue (the concept of > activity) it was > >>>>>> Hegel who understood that a concept must have all three > >>>>>> moments - universal, particular and individual. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Andy > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>> Andy Blunden > >>>>>> > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > >>>>>> On 15/10/2017 9:24 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > >>>>>>> Dear Mike, > >>>>>>> Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an > >>>>>> activist for his concreteness and clarifications is > >>>>>> crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot > >>>>>> ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes , > Parts , > >>>>>> and Moments. He personally provided us with > examples from > >>>>>> Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they > convert > >>>>>> Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced > with the > >>>>>> same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most > >>>>>> valuable contribution) does not begin with the > individual > >>>>>> case in isolation which phenomenologically > speaking (in > >>>>>> contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for > >>>>>> appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not > obtained > >>>>>> because one instance is considered detached from all > >>>>>> relations and its subservience to the service of the > >>>>>> Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is > particular in > >>>>>> some feature/s. And these particulars are > essential. With > >>>>>> other particulars in other individuals they are related > >>>>>> actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense , > this whole > >>>>>> could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life > itself. > >>>>>> Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is , > >>>>>> with category and concept only therefore , > following Marx > >>>>>> and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again > on his > >>>>>> feet (not that the firmament to that time did put > "idea" > >>>>>> on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on > their > >>>>>> heads but to put them again headstand thinking and > acting > >>>>>> with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just > >>>>>> with their brains. Then taking all options in > translation > >>>>>> even that of a Machine into consideration it does > not seem > >>>>>> to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of > >>>>>> Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of > >>>>>> activities thereafter. These activities are those > arising > >>>>>> from the properties of versatile objects in turn > arising > >>>>>> from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile > >>>>>> needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think > >>>>>> Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual > >>>>>> activities as moments with the broadest idea of the > >>>>>> Monistic Substantial Modes or States in Philosophical > >>>>>> terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn > integrate and > >>>>>> are dissolved into Monism of Substance. > >>>>>>> Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche > >>>>>> (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one > >>>>>> Substance) is already there with the organism > actively and > >>>>>> spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own , > >>>>>> positioning its due object and moving along its > contours > >>>>>> and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to > itself > >>>>>> , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and > >>>>>> bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as > >>>>>> novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with > >>>>>> Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with > a huge > >>>>>> gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of > >>>>>> consciousness , now apparently ascending to > "wording" and > >>>>>> "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration) > further > >>>>>> "communication" as something indispensable and > necessary > >>>>>> and inevitable to the realization of life affairs. > >>>>>>> Best > >>>>>>> Haydi > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> From: mike cole > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> To: Andy Blunden > >>>>>> >>; "eXtended Mind, Culture, > >>>>>> Activity" > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> Cc: Alexander Surmava > >>>>>> >>; ivan-dgf > >>>>>> > >>; Ivan > >>>>>> Uemlianin >>; > >>>>>> Haydi Zulfei > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50 > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > >>>>>> activity and communication > >>>>>>> Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.Could someone post > >>>>>> the Russian text next to the English so that it is > >>>>>> possible to compare it with the translation? I spent > >>>>>> several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of > >>>>>> Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally > defeated > >>>>>> me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra > rubles in > >>>>>> my pocket. > >>>>>>> Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can > warrant us > >>>>>> a "true" translation. > >>>>>>> mike > >>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden > >>>>>> > >> wrote: > >>>>>>> The Progress Publishers English translation of > "Activity and > >>>>>>> Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of > >>>>>>> Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, > >>>>>>> material life of the material subject. In the > narrower > >>>>>>> sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is > a unit of > >>>>>>> life, mediated by mental reflection, by > >>>>>>> an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the > >>>>>>> subject in the objective world. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The > >>>>>>> Development of Mind" we have: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an > >>>>>>> organism?s activity; the different activities that > realise > >>>>>>> its diverse vital relations with the surrounding > reality are > >>>>>>> essentially determined by their object; we shall > therefore > >>>>>>> differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively > >>>>>>> different] types of activity according to the > difference in > >>>>>>> their objects. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses > >>>>>>> "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The > effect has > >>>>>>> been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for > >>>>>>> English-speakers. It has generally been taken to > mean simply > >>>>>>> "category." The second does the same, but in > addition makes > >>>>>>> it evident that the plural does not refer to different > >>>>>>> activities, but to *types* of activity. This > blocks the > >>>>>>> possibility of forming a true concept of activity > >>>>>> altogether. > >>>>>>> With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your > claim is > >>>>>>> simply that "such an initial *category* can only be > >>>>>>> object-oriented activity" I have no objection, > supposing > >>>>>>> that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method > of units, > >>>>>>> even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Andy > >>>>>>> ------------------------------ > >>>>>> ------------------------------ > >>>>>>> Andy Blunden > >>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics > . > >>>>>> org/ablunden/index.htm > >>>>>>> On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: > >>>>>>>> Dear Andy! > >>>>>>>> I am glad that our communication was resumed > after many > >>>>>>>> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters > and files > >>>>>>>> and found that the problem of "object oriented > activity OR > >>>>>>>> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 > before > >>>>>>>> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is > serious and > >>>>>>>> it deserves to return to it today. > >>>>>>>> Last year I was close to being silent forever. > >>>>>>>> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy > postponed > >>>>>>>> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I > had the > >>>>>>>> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my > >>>>>>>> theoretical studies without entrusting this > matter to my > >>>>>>>> descendants :-). > >>>>>>>> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not > >>>>>>>> understand your question. What means the distinction > >>>>>>>> between singular and plural number in your > remark? Could > >>>>>>>> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the > >>>>>>>> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my > >>>>>>>> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not > coincide, > >>>>>>>> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the > theory of > >>>>>>>> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my > dissertation > >>>>>>>> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's > "Theory of > >>>>>>>> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, > >>>>>>>> having understood the theoretic meaning of your > claims to > >>>>>>>> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily > >>>>>>>> understand the essence of your objections to me. > >>>>>>>> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev > and I > >>>>>>>> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and > not as a > >>>>>>>> particular empirical case of its manifestation. > Therefore, > >>>>>>>> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. > Just like > >>>>>>>> Matter, Nature, or Substance. > >>>>>>>> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we > come across > >>>>>>>> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its > >>>>>>>> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the > >>>>>>>> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old > >>>>>>>> philosophers and that only the numerous > individual "atomic > >>>>>>>> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number > really > >>>>>>>> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar > >>>>>>>> positivism and empiricism. > >>>>>>>> However, all of this may not apply to your > position ... > >>>>>>>> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this > issue. > >>>>>>>> Best wishes > >>>>>>>> Sasha > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden > >>>>>>>> > >> > ?????(?): > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I'll ask Sasha a question. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial > >>>>>>>> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it > >>>>>> stands, > >>>>>>>> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be > >>>>>> that you > >>>>>>>> are translating it from a Russian statement that is > >>>>>> correct. > >>>>>>>> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as > in when I > >>>>>>>> say "every activity has an object." But in your > expression > >>>>>>>> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and > >>>>>> unless > >>>>>>>> you are a religious person is not something which can > >>>>>> have a > >>>>>>>> specific object. All English translations of A N > Leontyev > >>>>>>>> make this mistake which has caused no end of > confusion > >>>>>> among > >>>>>>>> English-speakers. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Am I right? You meant "activities" not > "activity," just as > >>>>>>>> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Andy > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ------------------------------ > >>>>>> ------------------------------ > >>>>>>>> Andy Blunden > >>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics > . > >>>>>> org/ablunden/index.htm > >>>>>>>> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Dear Sasha, all, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding > >>>>>>>> response. I think you are right in your assertion > that we > >>>>>>>> are discussing some of the most fundamental > problems of > >>>>>>>> CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. > However, one > >>>>>>>> can see in the lack of response by other > members?? that > >>>>>>>> not everyone has the privilege of the time it > requires to > >>>>>>>> go through all of it. In any case, I continue > believing > >>>>>>>> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to > produce and I > >>>>>>>> hope it is/will be appreciated as such. > >>>>>>>>> If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, > I quote > >>>>>>>> from your response: > >>>>>>>>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial > category, > >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, > then for us > >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We > will > >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which > one can > >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including > >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious > that > >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented > >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication > from the > >>>>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. > But from > >>>>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and > other such > >>>>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or > >>>>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" > >>>>>>>>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework > >>>>>>>> according to which we are looking of the most > original > >>>>>>>> germ cell, the one from which all others can be > >>>>>>>> developed??, then object-oriented activity is > primary. I > >>>>>>>> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to > agree on > >>>>>> that. > >>>>>>>>> But ??once we are back to the development of a > concrete > >>>>>>>> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact > that, for > >>>>>>>> any child to participate in human forms of > object-oriented > >>>>>>>> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented > >>>>>>>> activity that also characterise any other > multi-cellular > >>>>>>>> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise > into those > >>>>>>>> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any > category > >>>>>>>> devised to account for human psyche needs to > agree with > >>>>>>>> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you > describe, is > >>>>>>>> this germ cell initial to human concrete > psychology, or is > >>>>>>>> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? > >>>>>>>>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others > answer > >>>>>>>> (which I hope some do). > >>>>>>>>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question > a try: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be > primary in > >>>>>>>> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of > teaching > >>>>>>>> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies > show, this > >>>>>>>> is only possible through *involvement* in collective > >>>>>>>> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is > primary > >>>>>>>> over, for example, the teaching of a language > (which is > >>>>>>>> only possible in and through object-oriented > activity). > >>>>>>>> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional > aspect of > >>>>>>>> the relation between adult and child, inherently > tied to > >>>>>>>> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this > >>>>>>>> object-oriented activity already ?characterised > by all > >>>>>>>> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually > >>>>>>>> uplifting' in the very moment in which we > describe such > >>>>>>>> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do > you get > >>>>>>>> collective activity without them? On this, and > precisely > >>>>>>>> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence > of Man", > >>>>>>>> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident > in that > >>>>>>>> case that communication is included in activity > and is its > >>>>>>>> essential component: without relation to another > >>>>>>>> person(s), activity is impossible' (144). > Although I not > >>>>>>>> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, > here I can't > >>>>>>>> see how he can be wrong. > >>>>>>>>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of > >>>>>>>> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the > >>>>>>>> category of object-oriented activity, is most > primary. Let > >>>>>>>> me also note that ?there are other authors who have > >>>>>>>> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity > that you > >>>>>>>> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on > >>>>>>>> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom > >>>>>>>> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of > auto-affection' ( > >>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/ Incarnation-Philosophy- > >>>>>> Studies-Phenomenology- Existential/dp/0810131269 > >>>>>>>> ) > >>>>>>>>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology, > I wonder > >>>>>>>> whether ?we should be forced to choose between > activity > >>>>>>>> and communication. Is not the distinction just an > artefact > >>>>>>>> of a partial understanding of what it means > activity and > >>>>>>>> what it means communicating. I still feel that > >>>>>>>> communication, in the sense of addressivity that > Mikhailov > >>>>>>>> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, > or for > >>>>>>>> semiotics. If the question is whether practical > activity > >>>>>>>> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. > You don't > >>>>>>>> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my > perhaps > >>>>>>>> naive view, we ought to have a notion of > communication > >>>>>>>> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' > (as in > >>>>>>>> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), > for I > >>>>>>>> don't see how any practical activity can have any > sense > >>>>>>>> (and so be achieved) for any human outside > addressivity. > >>>>>>>> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity > we are > >>>>>>>> talking about; one machines could perform on > their own > >>>>>>>> without consciousness. ? > >>>>>>>>> Best wishes, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Alfredo > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ______________________________ __ > >>>>>>>>> From: Alexander Surmava > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 > >>>>>>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> .> edu>; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo > >>>>>>>> Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole > >>>>>>>>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > >>>>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more > interesting, > >>>>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But > before > >>>>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? > (replica > >>>>>>>> aside) :-) > >>>>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if > it is > >>>>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical > approach, > >>>>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its > framework > >>>>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a > >>>>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually > considered the > >>>>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. > >>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our > discussions > >>>>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the > >>>>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. > >>>>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the > principle > >>>>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism > compatible > >>>>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that > is, it is > >>>>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and > >>>>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. > Or maybe > >>>>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to > add to > >>>>>>>> these two principles something third, say - > "subjectness"? > >>>>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and > similar > >>>>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of > our inquiry > >>>>>>>> and without answering them in the most general > form, we > >>>>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. > But this > >>>>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, > >>>>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic > theoretical > >>>>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that > >>>>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological > theory, > >>>>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially > >>>>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a > consistently > >>>>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the > >>>>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical > >>>>>>>> verbiage. > >>>>>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ > >>>>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> > >>>>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical > >>>>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions > between > >>>>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. > >>>>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting > for me too > >>>>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to > education and > >>>>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from > Central > >>>>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > >>>>>>>>> Agitprop > >>>>>>>>> sticks > >>>>>>>>> in my teeth too, > >>>>>>>>> and I?d rather > >>>>>>>>> compose > >>>>>>>>> romances for you - > >>>>>>>>> more profit in it > >>>>>>>>> and more charm. > >>>>>>>>> But I > >>>>>>>>> subdued > >>>>>>>>> myself, > >>>>>>>>> setting my heel > >>>>>>>>> on the throat > >>>>>>>>> of my own song. > >>>>>>>>> Vladimir > Mayakovski > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ? ??? > >>>>>>>>> ???????? > >>>>>>>>> ? ????? ?????, > >>>>>>>>> ? ??? ?? > >>>>>>>>> ???????? > >>>>>>>>> ??????? ?? ??? ? > >>>>>>>>> ???????? ??? > >>>>>>>>> ? ??????????. > >>>>>>>>> ?? ? > >>>>>>>>> ???? > >>>>>>>>> ??????, > >>>>>>>>> ????????? > >>>>>>>>> ?? ????? > >>>>>>>>> ??????????? ?????. > >>>>>>>>> ???????? ?????????? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again > forced > >>>>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to > >>>>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces > us to > >>>>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, > literally > >>>>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the > abstract > >>>>>>>> to the concrete. > >>>>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting > questions > >>>>>>>> about how to understand the principle of > interaction as > >>>>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented > >>>>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will > answer > >>>>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed > >>>>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated > by me in > >>>>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago > ORIGIN OF > >>>>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian > >>>>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? > >>>>>>>> ????????????. > >>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% > 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% > >>>>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . > >>>>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the > >>>>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is > >>>>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in > published in > >>>>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange > >>>>>>>> reason was not published then or later. > >>>>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your > questions, > >>>>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text > >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. > >>>>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would > like to > >>>>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the > interaction > >>>>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in > no case > >>>>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two > >>>>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false > approach > >>>>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism > has in my > >>>>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that > should > >>>>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is > obvious > >>>>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is > characteristic of the > >>>>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling > called the > >>>>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object > >>>>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are > not dealing > >>>>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with > the logic > >>>>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? > >>>>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the > >>>>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, > "positing" > >>>>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, > >>>>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the > chemism > >>>>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the > sense > >>>>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its > active and > >>>>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic > interaction, in > >>>>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is > active, > >>>>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, > objective. There > >>>>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, > but let us > >>>>>>>> return to this somehow later. > >>>>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my > graduation > >>>>>>>> work of 1988: > >>>>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) > relation > >>>>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction > of two > >>>>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the > sun taken > >>>>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is > >>>>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It > >>>>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively > due to > >>>>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) > >>>>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? > >>>>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the > plant > >>>>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). > >>>>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet > relation > >>>>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, > spontaneously > >>>>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital > >>>>>> activity. > >>>>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive > relation, > >>>>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not > >>>>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being > stimulated. > >>>>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism > does not > >>>>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with > >>>>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external > influence. > >>>>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it > is not > >>>>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) > can be > >>>>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the > organism > >>>>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external > thing > >>>>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into > >>>>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it > >>>>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of > >>>>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive > >>>>>> relation.? > >>>>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and > >>>>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the > >>>>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special > Mikhailovsky's > >>>>>>>> "addressing" to another person. > >>>>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered > >>>>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have > to try to > >>>>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human > consciousness > >>>>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has > been and > >>>>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology > >>>>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and > >>>>>> Ilyenkov. > >>>>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If > we want > >>>>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the > >>>>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract > to the > >>>>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers > >>>>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of > >>>>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct > method, to > >>>>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical > >>>>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to > choose one > >>>>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at > first > >>>>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a > >>>>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of > course > >>>>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic > >>>>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that > ".?the human > >>>>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single > >>>>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the > >>>>>>>> social relations.. " > >>>>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in > Vygotsky's > >>>>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a > purely > >>>>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to > >>>>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical > psychology > >>>>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from > Marx, then > >>>>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely > >>>>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us > with > >>>>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which > of them it > >>>>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first > place, > >>>>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have > to be > >>>>>>>> solved by ourselves. > >>>>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this > >>>>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A > >>>>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose > leader was AN > >>>>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov > undoubtedly > >>>>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object > oriented > >>>>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the > first, second > >>>>>>>> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a > group of > >>>>>>>> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was > inclined to > >>>>>>>> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, > >>>>>>>> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas > "Leningraders" > >>>>>>>> were for communication. > >>>>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our > >>>>>>>> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a > literal > >>>>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, > but our > >>>>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, > such a > >>>>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the > >>>>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered > something > >>>>>>>> rather indecent. > >>>>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of > >>>>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also > >>>>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic > victory, > >>>>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by > organizing > >>>>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was > >>>>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was > >>>>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the > post of > >>>>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the > dean of > >>>>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a > >>>>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader > >>>>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful > people in > >>>>>>>> the ideological department of the Central > Committee of > >>>>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of > scientific > >>>>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful > discussions in > >>>>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the > >>>>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed > supporters > >>>>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. > Davydov's > >>>>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology > of RAE > >>>>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. > >>>>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to > >>>>>>>> "communication" and "activity." > >>>>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial > category, > >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, > then for us > >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We > will > >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which > one can > >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including > >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious > that > >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented > >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication > from the > >>>>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. > But from > >>>>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and > other such > >>>>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or > >>>>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. > >>>>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, > but a fact > >>>>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive > >>>>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner > reflexivity and > >>>>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is > first > >>>>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic > level, > >>>>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex > dialectic > >>>>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in > the course > >>>>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is > traced. > >>>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external > >>>>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, > >>>>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, > >>>>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a > >>>>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of > man. > >>>>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive > Activity" > >>>>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are > taken not > >>>>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of > >>>>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, > but as > >>>>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s > >>>>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. > >>>>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me > in my > >>>>>>>> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a > >>>>>>>> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the > >>>>>>>> relation of objective activity and > "communication". In the > >>>>>>>> same time, reflexive object oriented activity, > that is, > >>>>>>>> the active relation of the subject to the object > and to > >>>>>>>> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the > human, as, > >>>>>>>> indeed, any other, psychology. > >>>>>>>>> ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? > ??? ????, > >>>>>>>> ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, > ?????? ???, > >>>>>>>> ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? > ??????????, > >>>>>>>> ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? > ????? > >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS > >>>>>>>> ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. > >>>>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most > suitable > >>>>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, > >>>>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the > problem of the > >>>>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large > >>>>>>>> English text > >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS > >>>>>>>> and read it to the end :-). > >>>>>>>>> ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE > AND HUMAN > >>>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? > ???????????? > >>>>>>>> ????????????. > >>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% > 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% > D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> > >>>>>>>>> ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? > >>>>>>>> ??????????? ???????? > >>>>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ > >>>>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% > >>>>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% > >>>>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% > >>>>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% > >>>>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% > >>>>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% > BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 > >>>>>>>> . > >>>>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > >>>>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more > interesting, > >>>>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But > before > >>>>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? > (replica > >>>>>>>> aside) :-) > >>>>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if > it is > >>>>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical > approach, > >>>>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its > framework > >>>>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a > >>>>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually > considered the > >>>>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. > >>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our > discussions > >>>>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the > >>>>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. > >>>>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the > principle > >>>>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism > compatible > >>>>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that > is, it is > >>>>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and > >>>>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. > Or maybe > >>>>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to > add to > >>>>>>>> these two principles something third, say - > "subjectness"? > >>>>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and > similar > >>>>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of > our inquiry > >>>>>>>> and without answering them in the most general > form, we > >>>>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. > But this > >>>>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, > >>>>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic > theoretical > >>>>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that > >>>>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological > theory, > >>>>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially > >>>>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a > consistently > >>>>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the > >>>>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical > >>>>>>>> verbiage. > >>>>>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ > >>>>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> > >>>>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical > >>>>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions > between > >>>>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. > >>>>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting > for me too > >>>>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to > education and > >>>>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from > Central > >>>>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > >>>>>>>>> Agitprop > >>>>>>>>> sticks > >>>>>>>>> in my teeth too, > >>>>>>>>> and I?d rather > >>>>>>>>> compose > >>>>>>>>> romances for you - > >>>>>>>>> more profit in it > >>>>>>>>> and more charm. > >>>>>>>>> But I > >>>>>>>>> subdued > >>>>>>>>> myself, > >>>>>>>>> setting my heel > >>>>>>>>> on the throat > >>>>>>>>> of my own song. > >>>>>>>>> Vladimir > Mayakovski > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ? ??? > >>>>>>>>> ???????? > >>>>>>>>> ? ????? ?????, > >>>>>>>>> ? ??? ?? > >>>>>>>>> ???????? > >>>>>>>>> ??????? ?? ??? ? > >>>>>>>>> ???????? ??? > >>>>>>>>> ? ??????????. > >>>>>>>>> ?? ? > >>>>>>>>> ???? > >>>>>>>>> ??????, > >>>>>>>>> ????????? > >>>>>>>>> ?? ????? > >>>>>>>>> ??????????? ?????. > >>>>>>>>> ???????? ?????????? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again > forced > >>>>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to > >>>>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces > us to > >>>>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, > literally > >>>>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the > abstract > >>>>>>>> to the concrete. > >>>>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting > questions > >>>>>>>> about how to understand the principle of > interaction as > >>>>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented > >>>>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will > answer > >>>>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed > >>>>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated > by me in > >>>>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago > ORIGIN OF > >>>>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian > >>>>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? > >>>>>>>> ????????????. > >>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% > 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% > >>>>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . > >>>>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the > >>>>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is > >>>>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in > published in > >>>>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange > >>>>>>>> reason was not published then or later. > >>>>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your > questions, > >>>>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text > >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. > >>>>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would > like to > >>>>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the > interaction > >>>>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in > no case > >>>>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two > >>>>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false > approach > >>>>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism > has in my > >>>>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that > should > >>>>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is > obvious > >>>>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is > characteristic of the > >>>>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling > called the > >>>>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object > >>>>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are > not dealing > >>>>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with > the logic > >>>>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? > >>>>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the > >>>>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, > "positing" > >>>>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, > >>>>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the > chemism > >>>>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the > sense > >>>>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its > active and > >>>>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic > interaction, in > >>>>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is > active, > >>>>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, > objective. There > >>>>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, > but let us > >>>>>>>> return to this somehow later. > >>>>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my > graduation > >>>>>>>> work of 1988: > >>>>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) > relation > >>>>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction > of two > >>>>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the > sun taken > >>>>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is > >>>>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It > >>>>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively > due to > >>>>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) > >>>>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? > >>>>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the > plant > >>>>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). > >>>>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet > relation > >>>>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, > spontaneously > >>>>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital > >>>>>> activity. > >>>>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive > relation, > >>>>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not > >>>>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being > stimulated. > >>>>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism > does not > >>>>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with > >>>>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external > influence. > >>>>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it > is not > >>>>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) > can be > >>>>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the > organism > >>>>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external > thing > >>>>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into > >>>>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it > >>>>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of > >>>>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive > >>>>>> relation.? > >>>>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and > >>>>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the > >>>>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special > Mikhailovsky's > >>>>>>>> "addressing" to another person. > >>>>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered > >>>>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have > to try to > >>>>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human > consciousness > >>>>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has > been and > >>>>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology > >>>>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and > >>>>>> Ilyenkov. > >>>>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If > we want > >>>>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the > >>>>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract > to the > >>>>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers > >>>>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of > >>>>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct > method, to > >>>>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical > >>>>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to > choose one > >>>>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at > first > >>>>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a > >>>>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of > course > >>>>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic > >>>>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that > ".?the human > >>>>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single > >>>>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the > >>>>>>>> social relations.. " > >>>>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in > Vygotsky's > >>>>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a > purely > >>>>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to > >>>>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical > psychology > >>>>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from > Marx, then > >>>>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely > >>>>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us > with > >>>>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which > of them it > >>>>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first > place, > >>>>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have > to be > >>>>>>>> solved by ourselves. > >>>>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this > >>>>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A > >>>>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose > leader was > >>>>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov > undoubtedly > >>>>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object > oriented > >>>>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the > first, second > >>>>>>>> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", > whereas > >>>>>>>> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was > >>>>>>>> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In > other > >>>>>>>> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas > >>>>>>>> "Leningraders" were for "communication". > >>>>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our > >>>>>>>> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not > a literal > >>>>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, > but our > >>>>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, > such a > >>>>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the > >>>>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered > something > >>>>>>>> rather indecent. > >>>>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of > >>>>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also > >>>>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic > victory, > >>>>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by > organizing > >>>>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was > >>>>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was > >>>>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the > post of > >>>>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the > dean of > >>>>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a > >>>>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader > >>>>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful > people in > >>>>>>>> the ideological department of the Central > Committee of > >>>>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of > scientific > >>>>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful > discussions in > >>>>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the > >>>>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed > supporters > >>>>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. > Davydov's > >>>>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology > of RAE > >>>>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. > >>>>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to > >>>>>>>> "communication" and "activity." > >>>>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial > category, > >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, > then for us > >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We > will > >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which > one can > >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including > >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious > that > >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented > >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication > from the > >>>>>>>> object oriented activity, which is an attribute > property > >>>>>>>> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, > >>>>>>>> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting > plots, we > >>>>>>>> will never get life or object oriented activity > even with > >>>>>>>> the greatest diligence. > >>>>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, > but a fact > >>>>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive > >>>>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner > reflexivity and > >>>>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is > first > >>>>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic > level, > >>>>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex > dialectic > >>>>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in > the course > >>>>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is > traced. > >>>>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external > >>>>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, > >>>>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, > >>>>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a > >>>>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of > man. > >>>>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive > Activity" > >>>>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are > taken not > >>>>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of > >>>>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, > but as > >>>>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s > >>>>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. > >>>>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my > diploma > >>>>>>>> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist > >>>>>>>> theoretical solution to the question of the > relation of > >>>>>>>> objective activity and "communication". In the > same time, > >>>>>>>> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the > active > >>>>>>>> relation of the subject to the object and to > itself, is > >>>>>>>> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, > indeed, > >>>>>>>> any other, psychology. > >>>>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most > suitable > >>>>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, > >>>>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the > problem of the > >>>>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large > >>>>>>>> English text > >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS > >>>>>>>> and read it to the end :-). > >>>>>>>>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE > AND HUMAN > >>>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? > ???????????? > >>>>>>>> ????????????. > >>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% > 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% > D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> > >>>>>>>>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to > short > >>>>>>>> English one > >>>>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ > >>>>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% > >>>>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% > >>>>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% > >>>>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% > >>>>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% > >>>>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% > BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. > >>>>>>>>> Sasha > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > From avramus@gmail.com Tue Oct 17 18:52:36 2017 From: avramus@gmail.com (Alexandre Sourmava) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 01:52:36 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiAgUmU6INCe0YLQsjogUmU6IE9iamVjdCBvcmllbnRl?= =?utf-8?q?d_activity_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <1508190552093.73064@iped .uio.no> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Andy, your exact formula: "These are issues of science not theology because everygraduate student or researcher can use Vygotsky's concept of "unit of analysis" for original research" demonstrates explisitly that so called "Vygotsky's concept of"unit of analysis"" has nothing to do with Marxist method, but in best case is an euristic ruse or trick that does not guarantee the truth of the result. If, of course, it does not imply the successful publication of next article and the defense of next dissertation. In logic of Marx the initial, the most abstract category is meaningful, not formal moment of theory.?Therefore, according to your formula, we should expect from "eachgraduate student or researcher" that he/she will be the founder of new fundamental theorie.?I'm afraid that it will take a long time to wait because the number of items that have their own history and their own logic of development is not so much that they are enough for all students and academics. The fact that such "units" are really looking for and finding in great abundance, shows that Marxism is present here only formally.And again, if you understand the "cell" or "unit" in all seriousness, you have to acknowledge that Vygotsky did not find anything what could be called the most abstract definition of the psyche or human consciousness within the Marxist, materialist logic.To understand this, one should learn Marxist method from Marx and Ilyenkov, and not from Vygotsky. Vygotsky was a remarkable researcher who genuinely wanted to create a Marxist psychology, rather than compelled to pretend to be a Marxist, as Yasnitsky asserts. But to want and to be is far from the same thing. Sasha ??: Andy Blunden ????: "?eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" ??????????: ?????, 18 ??????? 2017 3:01 ????: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Dear Haydi, my seemingly "rapid answer" reflects the fact that my answer came out of 50 years of studying Marx and /Capital/, so it is certainly not "off the cuff." Although Marx never used the term "unit of analysis" (only "economic germ cell") Vygotsky derived this idea from his study of Marx's /Capital/ and he was perfectly correct in doing so. It remains one of his most original contributions to science. I don't know where A N Leontyev got his idea about having 2 or 3 units of analysis for activity, but it was a brilliant and original insight. I don't believe that ANL saw that his idea was prefigured by Marx and Vygotsky, but I don't know and it is not important. A study of /Capital /reveals that Marx used two units of analysis, corresponding to two levels of activity. In the first 3 chapters, the unit is an exchange of commodities C-M-C, which elucidates the formation of value in the activity of the market. In chapter 4, he introduces the unit of capital M-C-M' which thereafter forms the units of analysis of capital. When I first mentioned this to Alfredo I pointed out that Marx's analysis of the uniform rate of profit relies on this unit, so I followed up with a quote in which Marx (not Andy) talks of "capitals" and competition between them in the formation of a rate of profit. One of the side-benefits of identifying the unit of capital as a firm, is that it makes it quite explicit that *capital is a form of human activity*, not something extramundane which somehow magically expands itself. None of this is theology, but important methodological insights which all of us here, who have had the benefit of studying Vygotsky and Leontyev, can bring to our understanding of Marx. It is about ideas not people. This fact that there can be more than one unit of analysis in a science is not novel. In biology, it is not only the cell but also the organism which are units. Darwin's theory of evolution (along with the discovery of the cell, the founding idea of modern biology) depends on the organism (rather than the cell or the species) as the "molar unit" of biology. "Species" is a unit at a third level, with many species together forming an eco-system. These are issues of science not theology because every graduate student or researcher can use Vygotsky's concept of "unit of analysis" for original research. If all they know is "Vygotsky's unit of analysis was word meaning" there is no possibility of using this concept in their own research. If a methodological insight is going to be useful, it is essential to have at least several examples of its use to generalise from. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 18/10/2017 2:00 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > > Dear all, >? > From where I stopped : >? > > --My focus was on rejection of the existence of a > contradiction between ANL?s use of singular/plural > activity/activities and arguing that CAPITAL is not to be > torn up into pieces/parts. Talking of moments and wholes > does not necessarily mean involving units of analysis. >? >? > -- No, Alfredo. A unit of capital is a firm (or company). >? > > Am I confused? Or can I justify myself in attributing a > rush for a rapid answer which might be incorrect? A whole > investment in what is to be proved otherwise just on the > next post? I mean Alfredo?s ?a commodity as the unit of > analysis of the Capital". This time we should take a firm > with specific connotation inovatively coined as ?a > commodity?. >? > Is not this to justify our previous notes? In such cases > we say ?A hen has just one leg?. At one time , Modern > State is based on the Whole idea in contrast to old > Medieval State. At another time , Aggregates are supreme. > Has anybody seen Leontiev taking Firms Proper as > Activities proper? >? > > In the USSR , there were NOT firms , only the State. Andy > does not say here if his State is whole or aggregate. But > just one can guess he takes it as a Whole. For our > discussion no problem if he takes it as an aggregate > taking into account that a whole needs moments an > aggregate parts. But what is he referring to when he says > Leontiev takes micro and Molar in one complex? > Inferencially he might have taken a firm as micro in > contrast to Molar the more so that he has already issued a > firm as an activity But But dear Andy if I?m not so > confused even mad , you said in the USSR there were no > firms no individual activities for that matter ?? What > micros then are you referring to that Leontiev too has > drawn it into his discussion? Would it not be better for > you to argue that poor L was in total loss of finding the > other leg of our Hen?? >? > > --Andy?If you are so kind to take this as a moderate > critique , I then dare repeat if you are an orthodox > Marxist (also my mentor on that) why you in a brief span > of time let yourself jump up from a thousand times ?I?m an > activity theorist? to a point of suppressing it as sort of > a null/void? ?Now that the science of Linguistics has > progressed so far , talk of activity has gone into waste > of time?. ?not the proper quote but at least near to it. > This was just short of a multitude. > > > I wonder if this one suffices you to be an orthodox > Marxist for your addressee to be a counter one . > Incidentally I wanted to tell you there are much evidence > that you are a Marxist why then you bring up those words > against Marx? Many years back I asked you : Are you then > Hegelian? You said , No! I mean at the time also there was > overtone and exaggeration on Hegel. >? > > --Damn! Commodity exchange is the unit of burgeons > society... I have to study more! Thanks Andy >? > "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist > mode of production prevails, presents itself as ?an > immense accumulation of commodities,?[1] *its unit being a > single commodity*. Our investigation must therefore begin > with the analysis of a commodity" >? >? > This must have been taken from Marx. And please Alfredo , > give us the footnote for [1] >? >? > Is not this ?immense accumulation of commodities? the very > Capital? If positive , then the unit not a ?firm? but a > commodity. > > > Because a commodity (not any goods or product for > subsistence or barter) as to the nature of its definition > has the antinomy within itself and again to its very > nature is forced to be exchanged and if my memory helps , > Marx even after entering the discussion of the exchange > phenomenon , returns the discussion back to the existence > of potentially both relative and equivalent to one single > commodity. >? > >? > --Yes , yes . What yes :-) ? There's the 'Unit of analysis > is a commodity'. ? to its roots , to its source , *to its > unit* ?? ?but capital ? with capital? >? > ? just to preserve this for later discussions : ...in > speech arising in collaborative activity. >? > > > Your point in the first paragraph is what I was trying to > convey to Haidy, to see if there is room there for common > ground between your positions. ? >? >? > > --Yes , and this was my answer : First my point in the > last paragraph was not which one is the unit of analysis. > But that why is it we cannot use such sentences or phrases > altogether. For that matter, I concluded that wholes as to > their nature are not susceptible to get torn up. They are > contiguous phenomena. >? > And I should add that I really do not find myself in a > position to receive such kind favours. Thank you! The > problem is either I have not read enough to understand > which I accept generally or that authorities see > themselves too legitimate to think of their occasional > drawbacks and then not to see the dwarfs smaller than they > deserve to be.? >? >? > Capitals are units of capital. The only whole is the world > market, within which units of capital grow and shrink, > consume one another and so on. A capital (i.e. a firm) is > not a "whole" in the true sense of the word, and I would > have an issue with anyone who wants to treat a firm as a > "system of activity" if there were any implication that this > means a "closed system." >? >? > --I just want to ask Alfredo if he quoted Marx and if as > he or any other folk understood it , the unit of > > analysis is a commodity. Presently no judgment. >? > > > --Sasha arrives! He confirms the unit of analysis to be a > substantial commodity. >? > We should have more of him. Let?s wait. >? >? > > I read Marx saying the same when writing this in the > German Ideology: >? > > "The production of ideas, of conceptions, of > consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the > material activity and the material intercourse of men-the > language of real life." >? > > ?And then again, >? > > "Language is as old as consciousness, language > is practical, real consciousness that exists for other men > as well, and only therefore does it also exist for me; > language, like consciousness, only arises from the need, > the necessity, of intercourse with other men." >? > > I do not see here some hierarchy of primaries and > secondaries, but rather immanence, humanity as a > productive force that has practical and communicative > aspects. But I am happy to be in the process of being > corrected about this. >? > > > --I wouldn?t think Sasha consciously mixes up exchanges of > goods with exchanges of commodities Alfredo. And as you > note , > > it depends on what social relation of what socio-economic > formation we base our argument .? >? > > > ?an orderliness that is self-generating and irreducible to > any of the communicating 'parties' ?irrespective of > whether these parties are engaged in any human material > productive activity or not or if their communication could > have any relationship to that process generally if not > locally or temporally--or their messages. >? > > > Don?t you think it sounds a bit dualistic? I addsomething > to your sentence please see if you again could confirm it. >? > > I remember the travel by plane all intermittent talk , > etc. Those talks were all mixed up with actions processes > affecting each other as Andy says. One could think of > partial independence of consciousness but not ultimate > segregation and separation. This was reserved for this > moment : Andy : ? just to preserve this for later > discussions : ...in speech arising in collaborative activity. > > But you also remarked : activity constituted in > communication. I talked about it. And about historical > essential precedence. But now generally intertwined. >? > > > I read Marx saying the same when writing this in the > German Ideology: >? > "The production of ideas, of conceptions, of > consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the > material activity and the material intercourse of men-the > language of real life." >? > > Is the language of real life here equal to the very > self-generating independent communication you mentioned? > > ?And then again, >? > "Language is as old as consciousness, language > is practical, real consciousness that exists for other men > as well, and only therefore does it also exist for me; > language, like consciousness, only arises from the need, > the necessity, of intercourse with other men." >? > I do not see here some hierarchy of primaries and > secondaries, but rather immanence, humanity as a > productive force that has practical and communicative > aspects. But I am happy to be in the process of being > corrected about this. >? > > > This is also a follow-up from the above. What about 'at > first'? Humanity thinks and speaks but further than the > Commune humans as relating to their relevant classes > either toil or exploit or double-deal staggering between > the two. >? > > --To our time zone , I began in the morning and now is > night. Andy?s last message needs a fresher mind. > > Now good night! >? > I hope this reaches you non-crumbled non-clattered. I > won't be able to view it. > > Best >? > Haydi >? >? > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Andy Blunden > *To:* Alfredo Jornet Gil ; "eXtended > Mind, Culture, Activity" ; Mike > Cole ; ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? > ; Ivan Uemlianin > ; Martin John Packer > ; Alexander Surmava > > *Sent:* Tuesday, 17 October 2017, 1:46:24 > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity and communication > > The idea of producing for exchange being something > essential outside of a world in which products are > exchanged is to my mind something as curious as something > being a hammer outside of a world in which there are > nails. In preparing the conceptual foundation of > /Capital/, Marx wrote the /Grundrisse /and in the > Introduction he makes clear that production, distribution, > exchange and consumption form a unity, a whole, and have > to be analysed as such: > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc2 > >? ? "Thus production, distribution, exchange and >? ? consumption form a regular syllogism; production is >? ? the generality, distribution and exchange the >? ? particularity, and consumption the singularity in >? ? which the whole is joined together." > > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 17/10/2017 8:49 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > So, not commodity exchange, but commodity production, > Sasha. That is of course in line with everything else you > can read in Marx, including the introductory paragraphs of > the German Ideology, and sounds right. Although I did not > think that 'exchange of goods' was synonymous > with 'exchange of commodities,' It is a whole different > thing, and what you are saying is that these are different > because of the type of relations of production. Sounds > right to me. > > There are theories that take communication to be an > exchange of words, or of signs, or of ideas as you write, > a 'negotiation of meanings' others say. But there are > alternatives to that too, some of which characterise the > communicative relation as a productive force, an > orderliness that is self-generating and irreducible to any > of the communicating 'parties' or their messages. Led by > W-M Roth, we have written about this. Taking that > perspective, and this may be because I am 'only' > a student, and one much less qualified than the one you > speak about in your message, it becomes very difficult for > me to have communication to be somehow secondary. As it's > been suggested here. I feel more comfortable thinking of > 'productive activity' or object oriented activity, as > manifesting both as practical activity and > as communicative activity; but not first the one and only > later the other. > > I read Marx saying the same when writing this in the > German Ideology: > > "The production of ideas, of conceptions, of > consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the > material activity and the material intercourse of men-the > language of real life." > > ?And then again, > > "Language is as old as consciousness, language > is practical, real consciousness that exists for other men > as well, and only therefore does it also exist for me; > language, like consciousness, only arises from the need, > the necessity, of intercourse with other men." > > I do not see here some hierarchy of primaries and > secondaries, but rather immanence, humanity as a > productive force that has practical and communicative > aspects. But I am happyto be in the process of being > corrected about this. > > Alfredo > > PS: The text by Ilyenkov that Sasha refers to is available > at Marxists.org, here: >? https://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/abstract/index.htm > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Alexander Surmava > > *Sent:* 16 October 2017 17:00 > *To:* ablunden@mira.net ; > eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Alfredo Jornet Gil; Mike > Cole; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Ivan Uemlianin; Martin John Packer > *Subject:* ???: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity and communication >? > Dear colleagues, > > Excuse me for the delay in responding to your previous > posts about Leontiev and Vygotsky. The problems that we > are discussing are so serious that it takes a long time to > think about them and formulate an answer. Especially in > English :-). > > Therefore, the main answer I hope to put on the XMCA no > earlier than tomorrow. > > But suddenly the discussion turned into an extremely > interesting side. I mean analysis of the logic of "Das > Kapital". It is discussed what can and should be properly > considered the unit of analysis of both Capital and ?Das > Kapital?, the world system of capitalism and its > reflection in Marx? theoretic masterpiece. At least two > hypotheses have been voiced. The first is that such a unit > is a separate " business", a capitalist firm. And the > second, that the unit of analysis is the exchange of goods. > > I think that I can hardly agree with both hypotheses. > It seems to me that for Marx the first, most abstract > stage of analysis is in no case the exchange of goods, but > the commodity itself. And not an abstract commodity, but a > commodity produced under capitalistic relations. > Therefore, the unit of analysis is strictly speaking the > very production of such a commodity. > > The exchange of goods occurs not only under capitalism, > but also under slavery, and under feudalism. This is not > an independent, not substantial concept. The exchange > depends on the mode of production, and not vice versa. > > The same can be applied to "communication" in psychology, > to the "exchange" of ideas, caresses or beatings. This > communication does not occur due to certain immanent laws > of interpersonal communication, but entirely depends on > the collaborative object-oriented activity (predmetnoy > deyatelnosty), collective labor of historically determined > individuals. In turn, the nature of their collective work, > depends not on the distribution of genes in their genomes, > but on the distribution of the means of production, on the > distribution of labor instruments. Let us emphasize, not > on the distribution of verbal signs, not on ideology, but > on the distribution of the most material weapons of human > activity. > > With communist greetings :-) , > Sasha > > P.S. By the way, I enthusiastically welcome the fact that > our discussion has switched from discussing Vygotsky's > "units" to discussing the most abstract category of "Das > Kapital" of Marx, that is, from a pale copy, to the > original. By the way, in the future it might be > interesting to re-read the "Dialectics of the abstract and > concrete in scientific and theoretical thinking" by EV > Ilyenkov. This work contains an elaborate analysis of the > method of Marx, in comparison with which Vygotsky's > methodological reflexion seems to be something quite > student-like. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *??:* Andy Blunden > > *????:* Alfredo Jornet Gil > ; "xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu" > > > *??????????:* ???????????, 16 ??????? 2017 15:51 > *????:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and > communication > > Capitals are units of capital. The only whole is the world > market, within which units of capital grow and shrink, > consume one another and so on. A capital (i.e. a firm) is > not a "whole" in the true sense of the word, and I would > have an issue with anyone who wants to treat a firm as a > "system of activity" if there were any implication that this > means a "closed system." > > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 16/10/2017 11:42 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > > > Your point in the first paragraph is what I was trying to > > convey to Haidy, to see if there is room there for common > > ground between your positions. ? > > > > Alfredo > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Andy Blunden > > > *Sent:* 16 October 2017 14:39 > > *To:* Alfredo Jornet Gil; > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > > activity and communication > > > > > > Yes, yes, Alfredo! But what is often overlooked is that > > the aim of Marx's research is not commodity exchange (in > > itself a harmless business) but capital. But he does not > > *start* with capital, but goes down to its roots, its > > source, in the circulation of commodities. > > > > Compare with Vygotsky's analysis of the intellect > > (thinking). Word meanings are *not* the subject matter of > > Vygotsky's research (who gives a damn!?), but concepts! > > But he does not start with concepts, but goes down to its > > roots, its source, in speech arising in collaborative > > activity. Actually, AN Leontyev missed this, as can be > > seen in his trenchant attack on Vygotsky in his ?Study of > > the Environment in the Pedological Works of L. S. Vygotsky". > > > > Andy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 16/10/2017 11:31 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > >> Damn! Commodity exchange is the unit of burgeons > society... I have to study more! Thanks Andy > >> > >> "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist > mode of production prevails, presents itself as ?an > immense accumulation of commodities,?[1] its unit being a > single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin > with the analysis of a commodity" > >> > >> Alfredo > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > on behalf of > Andy Blunden > > >> Sent: 16 October 2017 14:22 > >> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity > and communication > >> > >> Just to illustrate that I am being an orthodox Marxist > here, > >> from Chapter 10, Vol. 3 of Capital: > >> > >>? ? "In the case of capitals of average, or approximately > >>? ? average, composition, the price of production is thus > >>? ? the same or almost the same as the value, and the profit > >>? ? the same as the surplus-value produced by them. All > >>? ? other capitals, of whatever composition, tend toward > >>? ? this average under pressure of competition. But since > >>? ? the capitals of average composition are of the same, or > >>? ? approximately the same, structure as the average social > >>? ? capital, all capitals have the tendency, regardless of > >>? ? the surplus-value produced by them, to realize the > >>? ? average profit, rather than their own surplus-value in > >>? ? the price of their commodity, i.e., to realize the > >>? ? prices of production." > >> > >> Andy > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> Andy Blunden > >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > >> On 16/10/2017 11:18 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > >>> No, Alfredo. A unit of capital is a firm (or company). > It is > >>> impossible to explain the formation of a rate of > profit (at > >>> least as Marx does in /Capital/) without the conception of > >>> units of capital, namely, firms and the competition > between > >>> them. Firms are of course, what Engestrom would call a > >>> "system of activity" or I would call a "project" and > >>> Leontyev almost could call an activity. But in the USSR > >>> there were no firms, only the state. It is perhaps A N > >>> Leonytev's greatest discovery? that there are both > micro and > >>> molar units in any complex process. True in Psychology and > >>> true in political economy. Whereas exchange of commodities > >>> is an artefact-mediated action, a firm is an activity, a > >>> specific aggregate of actions, directed towards the > >>> quantitative maximisation of the value of the unit of > capital. > >>> > >>> English is not a perfect language either. : ) The word > >>> "consciousness" has the unfortunate connotation of being a > >>> mass noun (or continuous substance) whereas it is know > only, > >>> of course, in individual "consciousnesses" or "minds." But > >>> it sounds so clumsy to say "a consciousness." > >>> > >>> Andy > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> Andy Blunden > >>> > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > >>> On 16/10/2017 11:07 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > >>>> Haydi, > >>>> > >>>> I think Andy does not mean 'one capital' versus > 'several capitals', for, if I read Andy adequately, > Capital is for him not a unit but rather the whole of > which commodity exchange is the unit. Thus, the germ cell > of Capital is thus not Capital, or 'a' Capital, which you > seem to attribute to Andy; just as I don't think he is > arguing that there is consciousness, and then many > consciousnesses. So it may be that you two agree more than > disagree, judging by your last paragraph. > >>>> > >>>> Whether his position on singular and plurals is more > or less adequate than another positions, that I leave it > up to the discussion. > >>>> > >>>> Alfredo > >>>> ________________________________________ > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > on behalf of > ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? > > >>>> Sent: 16 October 2017 09:45 > >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Andy Blunden > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity and communication > >>>> > >>>> Thank you David for your explanation! Though for me > it needs more than one read. > >>>> > >>>> The point was whether use of activity and activities > in Leontiev is a contradiction. Whoever L was and whatever > he believed in , he was not so negligent to the point of > posing activity first and immediately after that > recounting 'activities'. Translation ruled out a committed > error. Then such a blundering display must have a > justification rather than a misunderstanding in comprehension. > >>>> > >>>> In one sense all things are related. The more so with > the Monistic View. We have so many corporate and > incorporate things , two of them so problematic > communication and practical activity since Descartes and > we are determined to avoid Dualism and refer and return > all phenomena to that same thing , the one substance. In > the actuality of the world , there's nothing discrete , > that is , absolutely unrelated. Is that pretext for us not > to see this unbounded versatility and hues and dues as > distinct coloring? Maybe one of the ways was for man to > let Nature go unrestrained?? But man also did not come of > its own will. > >>>> > >>>> The sole way destined or open to Man was of its > Nature to engage with the surrounding. To deal with it > sensually and subjectively/agently. Then Man in one time > interpreted all phenomena as they appeared to him. But he > grew up further than his infantile period. He learnt to > delve into matters , go deeper and deeper. With one > spectacle (plane) he observed how that single substance > let its attributes multiply themselves into different > shapes and colors and Modes. With another plane of the one > spectacle observed the variation of the Modes themselves. > I mean Ontology and Epistemology not yet separate from > each other as I used a pair of planes for that matter. > >>>> > >>>> Then we usually don't use a nail-clipper for > alterations and manipulations in Genes. Or devices for > Genes for our feeding and nutrition. It is then within > these constraints that corporate and incorporate phenomena > differ. Singles and plurals differ. Discrete and the > indivisible differ. Parts and Moments differ. Wholes and > mere entities differ. A process and a product resulting > from that process differ. No justification to interchange > them because of the use of A in front of them. > >>>> > >>>> I wonder if this is true for others too. For me it's > difficult to accept to say "this capital that capital" > "those 8 capitals united" "capitals of the world dissolved > into unanimity". If I'm correct in this , it's , I think , > because Capital is a Whole , coming out of a long process > of functions and disfunctions , moments of circulations > and transient stagnation , booms and boosts and drawbacks > and failures. The moment of its conception in the exchange > of commodities up to the discovery of the private > appropriation of the surplus value to the point of > harnessing every means to penetrate each tight corner of > the big World. > >>>> > >>>> Best > >>>> Haydi > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>? ? ? From: David Kellogg > > >>>>? To: Andy Blunden >; "eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity" > > >>>>? Sent: Monday, 16 October 2017, 2:21:12 > >>>>? Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity and communication > >>>> > >>>> Of course, neither an object nor a process is > discrete (or even, as Andy > >>>> says, "discreet"). Who can tell me where a mountain > river ends and the > >>>> alluvial plain begins? Certainly not Cezanne or the > phenomenologists who so > >>>> loved him. Yet a mountain is most assuredly an > object, just as surely > >>>> as climbing the mountain to ascertain its degree of > montagnitude is a > >>>> process. > >>>> > >>>> This last week I've been struggling through the > "Curriculum Reforms" > >>>> wrought by three right wing governments in Norway, > Finland, and New > >>>> Zealand. Like Catalonia, these are all countries > where unpopular coalitions > >>>> of right parties are replacing a much more popular > but obviously > >>>> unsuccessful social democratic coalition of left > parties. In Norway and in > >>>> Finland, the coalition actually includes the far > right, neo-fascist, > >>>> anti-immigrant parties, and in New Zealand it > includes the ACT, that is, an > >>>> "association of consumers and taxpayers" whose main > interest is cutting > >>>> education budgets, starting by making teachers and > students fight each > >>>> other for scarce resources in the form of "block grants". > >>>> > >>>> Now, all of these governments are more or less bound > by something called > >>>> DeSeCo, which is short for Describe and Select > Competences. This is because > >>>> right-wing ideology sees education not as a public > good but as a commodity, > >>>> to be judged by tangible results and priced > accordingly. This presents a > >>>> real theoretical problem for right-wingers, because > they ALSO see that > >>>> "flexible labor markets" and "entrepreneurial spirit" > means that there > >>>> isn't any way of deciding on what skills or even what > knowledge the > >>>> "economy of the future" will demand. > >>>> > >>>> We can see this in the emphasis on "competence". > Competence is not a thing > >>>> or a process, and it is neither discrete nor > discreet. Of course, if you > >>>> are a linguist, competence is something Chomsky > thought of in the sixties, > >>>> an abstract form of knowledge in a hypothetical > native speaker-hearer in an > >>>> imaginary homogenous speech community. It is > "discrete" in the sense of > >>>> being nowhere and nowhen connectible to performance > in any way. It is > >>>> therefore "discreet" in the sense of being > untestable--as soon as you test > >>>> it, you have a form of performance, not competence. > It's like standing in > >>>> front of a classroom with a picture of a guy swimming > and trying to teach > >>>> the expression "i can swim". What you have in the > picture is not "I can > >>>> swim"; it's manifestly "he is swimming". > >>>> > >>>> But in DeSeCo, you get these lists of competences, > which are set up as if > >>>> they were discrete so you can list them on a > Powerpoint slide and sell them > >>>> to ministries of education. And the real selling > point is that, on the one > >>>> hand, because they are all "meta-skills" and > "meta-knowledges", they don't > >>>> have any practical outcome or real commitment to a > job and a livelihood. > >>>> And on the other, they sound terribly powerful when > you phrase them as > >>>> "learning to learn" or "transversal competence" or > "meta-cognitive skills" > >>>> or something like that. Jobs, in other words, are > discretionary. After > >>>> centuries of promising jobs and livelhood in return > for school and boredom, > >>>> the Western economies have decided that sticks are > cheaper than carrots, > >>>> and the thing to do is simply to rule people who > don't have educational > >>>> certificates out of the job market rather than try to > provide > >>>> actual know-how and factual know-that. > >>>> > >>>> Here are my four favorites (i.e. the four that we > stress in our own > >>>> curricular reform here in South Korea): > >>>> > >>>> interpersonal competence (sociability, the ability to > 'be alone with > >>>> others' as Hughlings Jackson put it) > >>>> cultural competence (enculturation, the ability to > understand traditions, > >>>> mores, and norms) > >>>> creative competence (intelligence, innovation, yadda > yadda) > >>>> individual competence (the ability to dress yourself, > feed yourself, and > >>>> show up for an interview where you will not be > offered a job) > >>>> > >>>> Vygotsky, as usual, has a better idea--it's a > mountain. We just turn the > >>>> DeSeCO PPT upside down. Then we add each > competence---freedom, creative > >>>> intelligence, encultured habits and tastes, and > instiinctive > >>>> sociability--as a superstructure? erected on the > basis of the previous one: > >>>> > >>>> free will (the ability to make choices that are not > necessarily intelligent > >>>> or habitual or instinctive) > >>>> intelligence (the ability to make choices that are > not habitual or > >>>> instinctive but nevertheless adaptive) > >>>> enculturation (the ability to make choices that are > not instinctive but > >>>> conform to the choices that have proven successful in > the now socialized > >>>> environment) > >>>> instinct (the ability to make choices that are > responsive to the > >>>> environment and which conform to the choices that > have proven successful in > >>>> phylogenesis) > >>>> > >>>> Are theses objects? Of course, if we say so. And > processes? Well, how else > >>>> could they have come about? What they are not, > however, is either > >>>> "discrete" or "discreet": they are clearly linked to > each other, and they > >>>> are all linked, through the lower layer, to > adaptations ot the environment. > >>>> > >>>> And there's the rub--where the rubber meets the road. > The real question, > >>>> for our teachers and for our children, is about what > will happen to them > >>>> now that these competences can no longer be redeemed > in jobs. Will the > >>>> anti-Faustian bargain of exchanging your youth for a > >>>> stable middle-aged livelihood survive? > >>>> > >>>> David Kellogg > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Haydi, you say "AN activity is not a thing ; it's a > >>>>> process." I wonder then what is a thing which is not > also a > >>>>> process? (I interpret "thing" as meaning "something > >>>>> discrete," otherwise your objection makes no sense.) The > >>>>> point is that Hegel does not make this dichotomy - every > >>>>> thing is also a process and vice versa. That a > process is > >>>>> also discreet is important because it is only thanks > to its > >>>>> discreteness that we can cognise the process and in fact > >>>>> only thanks to its discreteness that a process can > affect > >>>>> anything else. To speak of processes which are not also > >>>>> discrete is to speak in abstractions. > >>>>> > >>>>> On this point, when Hegel puts ideas above matter, > it has to > >>>>> be realised that for Hegel "ideas" are social > practices - he > >>>>> is simply place human practice at the centre of > human life > >>>>> and its comprehension, rather than the mechanical and > >>>>> chemical processes of Nature. If you think that > "ideas" are > >>>>> simply chimera inside our heads, then, of course, > Hegel's > >>>>> idealism seems like madness. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, all the Marxists have blasted Hegel. As they must. > >>>>> Otherwise they must end up advocates of Constitutional > >>>>> Monarchy. But while Marx uses almost every mention > he makes > >>>>> of Hegel to criticise him, often in extreme terms, > it can go > >>>>> unnoticed the extent to which in practice Marx > follows Hegel > >>>>> in philosophy. Of course Marx is not equal to Hegel, but > >>>>> simple formulae do not contribute to understanding > the relation. > >>>>> > >>>>> Andy > >>>>> > >>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> Andy Blunden > >>>>> > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > >>>>> On 15/10/2017 6:51 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > >>>>>> Andy, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Let me first apologize to David Kellog because in > others' > >>>>>> wandering and perplexity it was he who in his > reading of > >>>>>> Gramsci's prison letters came across this point and > made > >>>>>> you not only accept the inappropriateness of Hegel's > >>>>>> headstand as Crowning every worldly affair deriving > from > >>>>>> the People's Heads "Idea" , "Absolute" but also > >>>>>> intensifying this point with more examples and > references > >>>>>> from Engels' "utopian versus genuine socialism" on your > >>>>>> part. Of course you've been helping us on many > occasions > >>>>>> and? you're very welcome for this nothing to be denied. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> At this point we have no problem with translation. > >>>>>> Leontiev meant it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Suppose that ANL does not know "individual" which > is very > >>>>>> ambiguous because in what then one should seek the > >>>>>> embodiment of the "particular" and if one takes the > very > >>>>>> particular as individual , then everything gets > mixed up . > >>>>>> Then what about you who stick firmly on individual > >>>>>> discrete detached activities as an objection to Sasha's > >>>>>> sole ACTIVITY as theoretical understanding. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As you well know even AN activity is not a thing ; > it's a > >>>>>> process. And you once distinguished between GENERAL > WORK > >>>>>> ACTIVITY and LABOUR ACTIVITY or VALORIZATION ACTIVITY > >>>>>> which was quite right and timely though you > recently gave > >>>>>> differing definitions in no way harmonious to your > >>>>>> previous definitions. But the main problem is blending > >>>>>> clarity in expression with concrete in theory. No doubt > >>>>>> you're a Fan of Hegel. I should repeat myself : > Hegel is a > >>>>>> hero of theoretical concepts. In theorizing , and > for him > >>>>>> to explicate the Essence of Phenomena , he begins with > >>>>>> apparently concrete things as ABSTRACTS finally reaches > >>>>>> CONCRETE UNIVERSALS as concepts. And here we again very > >>>>>> surprisingly see you put your finger upon what you > should > >>>>>> have known in person is contrary to your own erudition. > >>>>>> Turning Hegel down as believing in discrete abstracts. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And now to his son's comment : What individual are you > >>>>>> pursuing? Your Hegel sees phenomena in their relations. > >>>>>> According to him and also according to ANL ACTIVITY > as a > >>>>>> unit of Life is Molar non-additive. He even does > not see > >>>>>> operations as single acts. It's a matter of the > angle of > >>>>>> vision not detachment and concreteness. If his son had > >>>>>> talked of concreteness in moments of activity , > then you > >>>>>> were right in your objections and oppositions. You > please > >>>>>> give us your last definition of activity here (not in > >>>>>> lengthy references) so that we can have a discerning > >>>>>> option. > >>>>>> So far to remove the problem we should accept > operations > >>>>>> are separately and independently carried out ; > actions in > >>>>>> their own are carried out ; activities are carried out > >>>>>> arbitrarily. And these are done to the realization > of man > >>>>>> as the ensemble of social relations based on some > >>>>>> infrastructure. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hegel's metaphor has been thrown back at him by Marx , > >>>>>> Engels , Lenin , Vygotsky , Ilyenko , and many > others. If > >>>>>> you like to stand above all Giants of Marxism , it's > >>>>>> something perfectly and absolutely Personal as you're > >>>>>> speaking out loud! Then why give us so many references. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Haydi > >>>>>> > >>>>>> P.S. Alfredo! Though you have my previous private > response > >>>>>> concerning the matters you pose I see myself > accountable > >>>>>> to rewrite them to the Public. Thanks! > >>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>> *From:* Andy Blunden > > >>>>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, 15 October 2017, 5:35:40 > >>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity > >>>>>> and communication > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Haydi, partly the problem with ANL's > >>>>>> philosophy-as-we-know-it is simply a product of its > >>>>>> translation into English. But partly it is also in his > >>>>>> philosophy. As Victor Kaptelinin first pointed out > (so far > >>>>>> as I know), ANL knows the universal and the > particular but > >>>>>> he does not know the individual. And his son's > comment that > >>>>>> ANL did not conceive of Activity as being discrete > proves > >>>>>> this to be the case. Thus his concept of Activity > is not a > >>>>>> fully concrete concept. And this is not a product of > >>>>>> translation. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As David Kellogg has kindly pointed out to me, it > was Hegel > >>>>>> who actually first introduced this metaphor of people > >>>>>> "walking (or standing) on their heads." Personally, > I don't > >>>>>> think it has ever helped anyone understand the > defect of > >>>>>> Hegel's philosophy to throw this metaphor back at > him. As > >>>>>> demonstrated in this issue (the concept of > activity) it was > >>>>>> Hegel who understood that a concept must have all three > >>>>>> moments - universal, particular and individual. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Andy > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>> Andy Blunden > >>>>>> > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > >>>>>> On 15/10/2017 9:24 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > >>>>>>> Dear Mike, > >>>>>>> Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an > >>>>>> activist for his concreteness and clarifications is > >>>>>> crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot > >>>>>> ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes , > Parts , > >>>>>> and Moments. He personally provided us with > examples from > >>>>>> Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they > convert > >>>>>> Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced > with the > >>>>>> same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most > >>>>>> valuable contribution) does not begin with the > individual > >>>>>> case in isolation which phenomenologically > speaking (in > >>>>>> contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for > >>>>>> appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not > obtained > >>>>>> because one instance is considered detached from all > >>>>>> relations and its subservience to the service of the > >>>>>> Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is > particular in > >>>>>> some feature/s. And these particulars are > essential. With > >>>>>> other particulars in other individuals they are related > >>>>>> actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense , > this whole > >>>>>> could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life > itself. > >>>>>> Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is , > >>>>>> with category and concept only therefore , > following Marx > >>>>>> and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again > on his > >>>>>> feet (not that the firmament to that time did put > "idea" > >>>>>> on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on > their > >>>>>> heads but to put them again headstand thinking and > acting > >>>>>> with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just > >>>>>> with their brains. Then taking all options in > translation > >>>>>> even that of a Machine into consideration it does > not seem > >>>>>> to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of > >>>>>> Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of > >>>>>> activities thereafter. These activities are those > arising > >>>>>> from the properties of versatile objects in turn > arising > >>>>>> from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile > >>>>>> needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think > >>>>>> Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual > >>>>>> activities as moments with the broadest idea of the > >>>>>> Monistic Substantial Modes or States in Philosophical > >>>>>> terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn > integrate and > >>>>>> are dissolved into Monism of Substance. > >>>>>>> Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche > >>>>>> (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one > >>>>>> Substance) is already there with the organism > actively and > >>>>>> spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own , > >>>>>> positioning its due object and moving along its > contours > >>>>>> and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to > itself > >>>>>> , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and > >>>>>> bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as > >>>>>> novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with > >>>>>> Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with > a huge > >>>>>> gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of > >>>>>> consciousness , now apparently ascending to > "wording" and > >>>>>> "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration) > further > >>>>>> "communication" as something indispensable and > necessary > >>>>>> and inevitable to the realization of life affairs. > >>>>>>> Best > >>>>>>> Haydi > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>? ? ? From: mike cole > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>? To: Andy Blunden > >>>>>> >>; "eXtended Mind, Culture, > >>>>>> Activity" > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> Cc: Alexander Surmava > >>>>>> >>; ivan-dgf > >>>>>> > >>; Ivan > >>>>>> Uemlianin >>; > >>>>>> Haydi Zulfei > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>? Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50 > >>>>>>>? Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > >>>>>> activity and communication > >>>>>>> Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.Could someone post > >>>>>> the Russian text next to the English so that it is > >>>>>> possible to compare it with the translation? I spent > >>>>>> several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of > >>>>>> Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally > defeated > >>>>>> me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra > rubles in > >>>>>> my pocket. > >>>>>>> Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can > warrant us > >>>>>> a "true" translation. > >>>>>>> mike > >>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden > >>>>>> > >> wrote: > >>>>>>> The Progress Publishers English translation of > "Activity and > >>>>>>> Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of > >>>>>>> Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>? ? Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, > >>>>>>>? ? material life of the material subject. In the > narrower > >>>>>>>? ? sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is > a unit of > >>>>>>>? ? life, mediated by mental reflection, by > >>>>>>>? ? an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the > >>>>>>>? ? subject in the objective world. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The > >>>>>>> Development of Mind" we have: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an > >>>>>>> organism?s activity; the different activities that > realise > >>>>>>> its diverse vital relations with the surrounding > reality are > >>>>>>> essentially determined by their object; we shall > therefore > >>>>>>> differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively > >>>>>>> different] types of activity according to the > difference in > >>>>>>> their objects. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses > >>>>>>> "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The > effect has > >>>>>>> been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for > >>>>>>> English-speakers. It has generally been taken to > mean simply > >>>>>>> "category." The second does the same, but in > addition makes > >>>>>>> it evident that the plural does not refer to different > >>>>>>> activities, but to *types* of activity. This > blocks the > >>>>>>> possibility of forming a true concept of activity > >>>>>> altogether. > >>>>>>> With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your > claim is > >>>>>>> simply that "such an initial *category* can only be > >>>>>>> object-oriented activity" I have no objection, > supposing > >>>>>>> that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method > of units, > >>>>>>> even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Andy > >>>>>>> ------------------------------ > >>>>>> ------------------------------ > >>>>>>> Andy Blunden > >>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics > . > >>>>>> org/ablunden/index.htm > >>>>>>> On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: > >>>>>>>> Dear Andy! > >>>>>>>> I am glad that our communication was resumed > after many > >>>>>>>> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters > and files > >>>>>>>> and found that the problem of "object oriented > activity OR > >>>>>>>> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 > before > >>>>>>>> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is > serious and > >>>>>>>> it deserves to return to it today. > >>>>>>>> Last year I was close to being silent forever. > >>>>>>>> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy > postponed > >>>>>>>> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I > had the > >>>>>>>> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my > >>>>>>>> theoretical studies without entrusting this > matter to my > >>>>>>>> descendants :-). > >>>>>>>> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not > >>>>>>>> understand your question. What means the distinction > >>>>>>>> between singular and plural number in your > remark? Could > >>>>>>>> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the > >>>>>>>> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my > >>>>>>>> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not > coincide, > >>>>>>>> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the > theory of > >>>>>>>> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my > dissertation > >>>>>>>> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's > "Theory of > >>>>>>>> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, > >>>>>>>> having understood the theoretic meaning of your > claims to > >>>>>>>> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily > >>>>>>>> understand the essence of your objections to me. > >>>>>>>> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev > and I > >>>>>>>> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and > not as a > >>>>>>>> particular empirical case of its manifestation. > Therefore, > >>>>>>>> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. > Just like > >>>>>>>> Matter, Nature, or Substance. > >>>>>>>> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we > come across > >>>>>>>> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its > >>>>>>>> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the > >>>>>>>> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old > >>>>>>>> philosophers and that only the numerous > individual "atomic > >>>>>>>> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number > really > >>>>>>>> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar > >>>>>>>> positivism and empiricism. > >>>>>>>> However, all of this may not apply to your > position ... > >>>>>>>> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this > issue. > >>>>>>>> Best wishes > >>>>>>>> Sasha > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden > >>>>>>>> > >> > ?????(?): > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I'll ask Sasha a question. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial > >>>>>>>> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it > >>>>>> stands, > >>>>>>>> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be > >>>>>> that you > >>>>>>>> are translating it from a Russian statement that is > >>>>>> correct. > >>>>>>>> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as > in when I > >>>>>>>> say "every activity has an object."? But in your > expression > >>>>>>>> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and > >>>>>> unless > >>>>>>>> you are a religious person is not something which can > >>>>>> have a > >>>>>>>> specific object. All English translations of A N > Leontyev > >>>>>>>> make this mistake which has caused no end of > confusion > >>>>>> among > >>>>>>>> English-speakers. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Am I right? You meant "activities" not > "activity," just as > >>>>>>>> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Andy > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ------------------------------ > >>>>>> ------------------------------ > >>>>>>>> Andy Blunden > >>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics > . > >>>>>> org/ablunden/index.htm > >>>>>>>> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Dear Sasha, all, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding > >>>>>>>> response. I think you are right in your assertion > that we > >>>>>>>> are discussing some of the most fundamental > problems of > >>>>>>>> CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. > However, one > >>>>>>>> can see in the lack of response by other > members?? that > >>>>>>>> not everyone has the privilege of the time it > requires to > >>>>>>>> go through all of it. In any case, I continue > believing > >>>>>>>> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to > produce and I > >>>>>>>> hope it is/will be appreciated as such. > >>>>>>>>> If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, > I quote > >>>>>>>> from your response: > >>>>>>>>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial > category, > >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, > then for us > >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We > will > >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which > one can > >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including > >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious > that > >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented > >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication > from the > >>>>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. > But from > >>>>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and > other such > >>>>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or > >>>>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" > >>>>>>>>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework > >>>>>>>> according to which we are looking of the most > original > >>>>>>>> germ cell, the one from which all others can be > >>>>>>>> developed??, then object-oriented activity is > primary. I > >>>>>>>> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to > agree on > >>>>>> that. > >>>>>>>>> But ??once we are back to the development of a > concrete > >>>>>>>> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact > that, for > >>>>>>>> any child to participate in human forms of > object-oriented > >>>>>>>> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented > >>>>>>>> activity that also characterise any other > multi-cellular > >>>>>>>> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise > into those > >>>>>>>> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any > category > >>>>>>>> devised to account for human psyche needs to > agree with > >>>>>>>> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you > describe, is > >>>>>>>> this germ cell initial to human concrete > psychology, or is > >>>>>>>> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? > >>>>>>>>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others > answer > >>>>>>>> (which I hope some do). > >>>>>>>>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question > a try: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be > primary in > >>>>>>>> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of > teaching > >>>>>>>> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies > show, this > >>>>>>>> is only possible through *involvement* in collective > >>>>>>>> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is > primary > >>>>>>>> over, for example, the teaching of a language > (which is > >>>>>>>> only possible in and through object-oriented > activity). > >>>>>>>> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional > aspect of > >>>>>>>> the relation between adult and child, inherently > tied to > >>>>>>>> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this > >>>>>>>> object-oriented activity already ?characterised > by all > >>>>>>>> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually > >>>>>>>> uplifting' in the very moment in which we > describe such > >>>>>>>> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do > you get > >>>>>>>> collective activity without them? On this, and > precisely > >>>>>>>> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence > of Man", > >>>>>>>> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident > in that > >>>>>>>> case that communication is included in activity > and is its > >>>>>>>> essential component: without relation to another > >>>>>>>> person(s), activity is impossible'? (144). > Although I not > >>>>>>>> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, > here I can't > >>>>>>>> see how he can be wrong. > >>>>>>>>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of > >>>>>>>> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the > >>>>>>>> category of object-oriented activity, is most > primary. Let > >>>>>>>> me also note that ?there are other authors who have > >>>>>>>> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity > that you > >>>>>>>> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on > >>>>>>>> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom > >>>>>>>> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of > auto-affection' ( > >>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/ Incarnation-Philosophy- > >>>>>> Studies-Phenomenology- Existential/dp/0810131269 > >>>>>>>> ) > >>>>>>>>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology, > I wonder > >>>>>>>> whether ?we should be forced to choose between > activity > >>>>>>>> and communication. Is not the distinction just an > artefact > >>>>>>>> of a partial understanding of what it means > activity and > >>>>>>>> what it means communicating. I still feel that > >>>>>>>> communication, in the sense of addressivity that > Mikhailov > >>>>>>>> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, > or for > >>>>>>>> semiotics. If the question is whether practical > activity > >>>>>>>> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. > You don't > >>>>>>>> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my > perhaps > >>>>>>>> naive view, we ought to have a notion of > communication > >>>>>>>> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' > (as in > >>>>>>>> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), > for I > >>>>>>>> don't see how any practical activity can have any > sense > >>>>>>>> (and so be achieved) for any human outside > addressivity. > >>>>>>>> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity > we are > >>>>>>>> talking about; one machines could perform on > their own > >>>>>>>> without consciousness. ? > >>>>>>>>> Best wishes, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Alfredo > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ______________________________ __ > >>>>>>>>> From: Alexander Surmava > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 > >>>>>>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> .> edu>; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo > >>>>>>>> Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole > >>>>>>>>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > >>>>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more > interesting, > >>>>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But > before > >>>>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? > (replica > >>>>>>>> aside) :-) > >>>>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if > it is > >>>>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical > approach, > >>>>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its > framework > >>>>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a > >>>>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually > considered the > >>>>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. > >>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our > discussions > >>>>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the > >>>>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. > >>>>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the > principle > >>>>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism > compatible > >>>>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that > is, it is > >>>>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and > >>>>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. > Or maybe > >>>>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to > add to > >>>>>>>> these two principles something third, say - > "subjectness"? > >>>>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and > similar > >>>>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of > our inquiry > >>>>>>>> and without answering them in the most general > form, we > >>>>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. > But this > >>>>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, > >>>>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic > theoretical > >>>>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that > >>>>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological > theory, > >>>>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially > >>>>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a > consistently > >>>>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the > >>>>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical > >>>>>>>> verbiage. > >>>>>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ > >>>>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> > >>>>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical > >>>>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions > between > >>>>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. > >>>>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting > for me too > >>>>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to > education and > >>>>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from > Central > >>>>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > >>>>>>>>> Agitprop > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? sticks > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? in my teeth too, > >>>>>>>>> and I?d rather > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? compose > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? romances for you - > >>>>>>>>> more profit in it > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? and more charm. > >>>>>>>>> But I > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? subdued > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? myself, > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? setting my heel > >>>>>>>>> on the throat > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of my own song. > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Vladimir > Mayakovski > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ? ??? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????? ?????, > >>>>>>>>> ? ??? ?? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????? ?? ??? ? > >>>>>>>>> ???????? ??? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????. > >>>>>>>>> ?? ? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ???? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????, > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????????? > >>>>>>>>> ?? ????? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????? ?????. > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? ?????????? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again > forced > >>>>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to > >>>>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces > us to > >>>>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, > literally > >>>>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the > abstract > >>>>>>>> to the concrete. > >>>>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting > questions > >>>>>>>> about how to understand the principle of > interaction as > >>>>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented > >>>>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will > answer > >>>>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed > >>>>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated > by me in > >>>>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago > ORIGIN OF > >>>>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian > >>>>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? > >>>>>>>> ????????????. > >>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% > 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% > >>>>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . > >>>>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the > >>>>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is > >>>>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in > published in > >>>>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange > >>>>>>>> reason was not published then or later. > >>>>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your > questions, > >>>>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text > >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. > >>>>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would > like to > >>>>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the > interaction > >>>>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in > no case > >>>>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two > >>>>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false > approach > >>>>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism > has in my > >>>>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that > should > >>>>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is > obvious > >>>>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is > characteristic of the > >>>>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling > called the > >>>>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object > >>>>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are > not dealing > >>>>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with > the logic > >>>>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? > >>>>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the > >>>>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, > "positing" > >>>>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, > >>>>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the > chemism > >>>>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the > sense > >>>>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its > active and > >>>>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic > interaction, in > >>>>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is > active, > >>>>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, > objective. There > >>>>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, > but let us > >>>>>>>> return to this somehow later. > >>>>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my > graduation > >>>>>>>> work of 1988: > >>>>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) > relation > >>>>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction > of two > >>>>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the > sun taken > >>>>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is > >>>>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It > >>>>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively > due to > >>>>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) > >>>>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? > >>>>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the > plant > >>>>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). > >>>>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet > relation > >>>>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, > spontaneously > >>>>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital > >>>>>> activity. > >>>>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive > relation, > >>>>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not > >>>>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being > stimulated. > >>>>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism > does not > >>>>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with > >>>>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external > influence. > >>>>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it > is not > >>>>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) > can be > >>>>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the > organism > >>>>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external > thing > >>>>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into > >>>>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it > >>>>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of > >>>>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive > >>>>>> relation.? > >>>>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and > >>>>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the > >>>>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special > Mikhailovsky's > >>>>>>>> "addressing" to another person. > >>>>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered > >>>>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have > to try to > >>>>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human > consciousness > >>>>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has > been and > >>>>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology > >>>>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and > >>>>>> Ilyenkov. > >>>>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If > we want > >>>>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the > >>>>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract > to the > >>>>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers > >>>>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of > >>>>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct > method, to > >>>>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical > >>>>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to > choose one > >>>>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at > first > >>>>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a > >>>>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of > course > >>>>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic > >>>>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that > ".?the human > >>>>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single > >>>>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the > >>>>>>>> social relations.. " > >>>>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in > Vygotsky's > >>>>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a > purely > >>>>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to > >>>>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical > psychology > >>>>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from > Marx, then > >>>>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely > >>>>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us > with > >>>>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which > of them it > >>>>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first > place, > >>>>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have > to be > >>>>>>>> solved by ourselves. > >>>>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this > >>>>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A > >>>>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose > leader was AN > >>>>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov > undoubtedly > >>>>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object > oriented > >>>>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the > first, second > >>>>>>>> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a > group of > >>>>>>>> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was > inclined to > >>>>>>>> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, > >>>>>>>> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas > "Leningraders" > >>>>>>>> were for communication. > >>>>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our > >>>>>>>> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a > literal > >>>>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, > but our > >>>>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, > such a > >>>>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the > >>>>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered > something > >>>>>>>> rather indecent. > >>>>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of > >>>>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also > >>>>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic > victory, > >>>>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by > organizing > >>>>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was > >>>>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was > >>>>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the > post of > >>>>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the > dean of > >>>>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a > >>>>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader > >>>>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful > people in > >>>>>>>> the ideological department of the Central > Committee of > >>>>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of > scientific > >>>>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful > discussions in > >>>>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the > >>>>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed > supporters > >>>>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. > Davydov's > >>>>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology > of RAE > >>>>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. > >>>>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to > >>>>>>>> "communication" and "activity." > >>>>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial > category, > >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, > then for us > >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We > will > >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which > one can > >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including > >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious > that > >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented > >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication > from the > >>>>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. > But from > >>>>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and > other such > >>>>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or > >>>>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. > >>>>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, > but a fact > >>>>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive > >>>>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner > reflexivity and > >>>>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is > first > >>>>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic > level, > >>>>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex > dialectic > >>>>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in > the course > >>>>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is > traced. > >>>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external > >>>>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, > >>>>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, > >>>>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a > >>>>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of > man. > >>>>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive > Activity" > >>>>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are > taken not > >>>>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of > >>>>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, > but as > >>>>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s > >>>>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. > >>>>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me > in my > >>>>>>>> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a > >>>>>>>> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the > >>>>>>>> relation of objective activity and > "communication". In the > >>>>>>>> same time, reflexive object oriented activity, > that is, > >>>>>>>> the active relation of the subject to the object > and to > >>>>>>>> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the > human, as, > >>>>>>>> indeed, any other, psychology. > >>>>>>>>> ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? > ??? ????, > >>>>>>>> ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, > ?????? ???, > >>>>>>>> ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? > ??????????, > >>>>>>>> ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? > ????? > >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS > >>>>>>>> ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. > >>>>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most > suitable > >>>>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, > >>>>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the > problem of the > >>>>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large > >>>>>>>> English text > >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS > >>>>>>>> and read it to the end :-). > >>>>>>>>> ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE > AND HUMAN > >>>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? > ???????????? > >>>>>>>> ????????????. > >>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% > 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% > D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> > >>>>>>>>> ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? > >>>>>>>> ??????????? ???????? > >>>>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ > >>>>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% > >>>>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% > >>>>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% > >>>>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% > >>>>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% > >>>>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% > BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 > >>>>>>>> . > >>>>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > >>>>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more > interesting, > >>>>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But > before > >>>>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? > (replica > >>>>>>>> aside) :-) > >>>>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if > it is > >>>>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical > approach, > >>>>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its > framework > >>>>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a > >>>>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually > considered the > >>>>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. > >>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our > discussions > >>>>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the > >>>>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. > >>>>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the > principle > >>>>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism > compatible > >>>>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that > is, it is > >>>>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and > >>>>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. > Or maybe > >>>>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to > add to > >>>>>>>> these two principles something third, say - > "subjectness"? > >>>>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and > similar > >>>>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of > our inquiry > >>>>>>>> and without answering them in the most general > form, we > >>>>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. > But this > >>>>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, > >>>>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic > theoretical > >>>>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that > >>>>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological > theory, > >>>>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially > >>>>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a > consistently > >>>>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the > >>>>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical > >>>>>>>> verbiage. > >>>>>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ > >>>>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> > >>>>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical > >>>>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions > between > >>>>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. > >>>>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting > for me too > >>>>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to > education and > >>>>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from > Central > >>>>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > >>>>>>>>> Agitprop > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? sticks > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? in my teeth too, > >>>>>>>>> and I?d rather > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? compose > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? romances for you - > >>>>>>>>> more profit in it > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? and more charm. > >>>>>>>>> But I > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? subdued > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? myself, > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? setting my heel > >>>>>>>>> on the throat > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of my own song. > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Vladimir > Mayakovski > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ? ??? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????? ?????, > >>>>>>>>> ? ??? ?? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????? ?? ??? ? > >>>>>>>>> ???????? ??? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????. > >>>>>>>>> ?? ? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ???? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????, > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????????? > >>>>>>>>> ?? ????? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????? ?????. > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? ?????????? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again > forced > >>>>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to > >>>>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces > us to > >>>>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, > literally > >>>>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the > abstract > >>>>>>>> to the concrete. > >>>>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting > questions > >>>>>>>> about how to understand the principle of > interaction as > >>>>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented > >>>>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will > answer > >>>>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed > >>>>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated > by me in > >>>>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago > ORIGIN OF > >>>>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian > >>>>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? > >>>>>>>> ????????????. > >>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% > 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% > >>>>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . > >>>>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the > >>>>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is > >>>>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in > published in > >>>>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange > >>>>>>>> reason was not published then or later. > >>>>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your > questions, > >>>>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text > >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. > >>>>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would > like to > >>>>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the > interaction > >>>>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in > no case > >>>>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two > >>>>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false > approach > >>>>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism > has in my > >>>>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that > should > >>>>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is > obvious > >>>>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is > characteristic of the > >>>>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling > called the > >>>>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object > >>>>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are > not dealing > >>>>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with > the logic > >>>>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? > >>>>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the > >>>>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, > "positing" > >>>>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, > >>>>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the > chemism > >>>>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the > sense > >>>>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its > active and > >>>>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic > interaction, in > >>>>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is > active, > >>>>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, > objective. There > >>>>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, > but let us > >>>>>>>> return to this somehow later. > >>>>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my > graduation > >>>>>>>> work of 1988: > >>>>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) > relation > >>>>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction > of two > >>>>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the > sun taken > >>>>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is > >>>>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It > >>>>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively > due to > >>>>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) > >>>>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? > >>>>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the > plant > >>>>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). > >>>>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet > relation > >>>>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, > spontaneously > >>>>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital > >>>>>> activity. > >>>>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive > relation, > >>>>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not > >>>>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being > stimulated. > >>>>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism > does not > >>>>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with > >>>>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external > influence. > >>>>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it > is not > >>>>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) > can be > >>>>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the > organism > >>>>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external > thing > >>>>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into > >>>>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it > >>>>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of > >>>>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive > >>>>>> relation.? > >>>>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and > >>>>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the > >>>>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special > Mikhailovsky's > >>>>>>>> "addressing" to another person. > >>>>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered > >>>>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have > to try to > >>>>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human > consciousness > >>>>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has > been and > >>>>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology > >>>>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and > >>>>>> Ilyenkov. > >>>>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If > we want > >>>>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the > >>>>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract > to the > >>>>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers > >>>>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of > >>>>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct > method, to > >>>>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical > >>>>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to > choose one > >>>>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at > first > >>>>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a > >>>>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of > course > >>>>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic > >>>>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that > ".?the human > >>>>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single > >>>>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the > >>>>>>>> social relations.. " > >>>>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in > Vygotsky's > >>>>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a > purely > >>>>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to > >>>>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical > psychology > >>>>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from > Marx, then > >>>>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely > >>>>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us > with > >>>>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which > of them it > >>>>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first > place, > >>>>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have > to be > >>>>>>>> solved by ourselves. > >>>>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this > >>>>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A > >>>>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose > leader was > >>>>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov > undoubtedly > >>>>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object > oriented > >>>>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the > first, second > >>>>>>>> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", > whereas > >>>>>>>> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was > >>>>>>>> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In > other > >>>>>>>> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas > >>>>>>>> "Leningraders" were for "communication". > >>>>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our > >>>>>>>> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not > a literal > >>>>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, > but our > >>>>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, > such a > >>>>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the > >>>>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered > something > >>>>>>>> rather indecent. > >>>>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of > >>>>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also > >>>>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic > victory, > >>>>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by > organizing > >>>>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was > >>>>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was > >>>>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the > post of > >>>>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the > dean of > >>>>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a > >>>>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader > >>>>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful > people in > >>>>>>>> the ideological department of the Central > Committee of > >>>>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of > scientific > >>>>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful > discussions in > >>>>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the > >>>>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed > supporters > >>>>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. > Davydov's > >>>>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology > of RAE > >>>>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. > >>>>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to > >>>>>>>> "communication" and "activity." > >>>>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial > category, > >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, > then for us > >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We > will > >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which > one can > >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including > >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious > that > >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented > >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication > from the > >>>>>>>> object oriented activity, which is an attribute > property > >>>>>>>> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, > >>>>>>>> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting > plots, we > >>>>>>>> will never get life or object oriented activity > even with > >>>>>>>> the greatest diligence. > >>>>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, > but a fact > >>>>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive > >>>>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner > reflexivity and > >>>>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is > first > >>>>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic > level, > >>>>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex > dialectic > >>>>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in > the course > >>>>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is > traced. > >>>>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external > >>>>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, > >>>>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, > >>>>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a > >>>>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of > man. > >>>>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive > Activity" > >>>>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are > taken not > >>>>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of > >>>>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, > but as > >>>>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s > >>>>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. > >>>>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my > diploma > >>>>>>>> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist > >>>>>>>> theoretical solution to the question of the > relation of > >>>>>>>> objective activity and "communication". In the > same time, > >>>>>>>> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the > active > >>>>>>>> relation of the subject to the object and to > itself, is > >>>>>>>> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, > indeed, > >>>>>>>> any other, psychology. > >>>>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most > suitable > >>>>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, > >>>>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the > problem of the > >>>>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large > >>>>>>>> English text > >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS > >>>>>>>> and read it to the end :-). > >>>>>>>>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE > AND HUMAN > >>>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? > ???????????? > >>>>>>>> ????????????. > >>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% > 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% > D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> > >>>>>>>>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to > short > >>>>>>>> English one > >>>>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ > >>>>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% > >>>>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% > >>>>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% > >>>>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% > >>>>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% > >>>>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% > BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. > >>>>>>>>> Sasha > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > From lstone@skymail.csus.edu Tue Oct 17 20:30:36 2017 From: lstone@skymail.csus.edu (Stone, Lynda) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 03:30:36 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: job-CSU Sacramento In-Reply-To: <262AA420-C566-4810-8A1D-2B1156CDA2D7@manchester.ac.uk> References: <262AA420-C566-4810-8A1D-2B1156CDA2D7@manchester.ac.uk> Message-ID: Hi again Julian?just saw this response. There was a reason for the qualitative emphasis and it had more to do with competencies with qualitative rather than lack of quantitative methodological knowledge?I am assuming folks would have both. However, I have discovered that those who attain there PhD?s here in traditional human development programs (at least those who apply for our positions) often have only a superficial knowledge of qualitative research and no experience with it, as this is the case with many of our faculty who are well trained to do laboratory research?- The best approach, of course, is to generate an interesting research question and then utilize whatever methods are appropriate for this question. So the emphasis in the job call was to meet programmatic needs. I hope this helps you understand why ?qualitative? was placed in the requirement? My guess is that degrees in human development in your setting might offer course work and practical experience in both methods, as did my training. Sincerely, -lynda Lynda Stone, Ph.D. Professor Child Development CSUS/UC-Links After-school Program Director On 10/17/17, 2:35 PM, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Julian Williams" wrote: >Lynda > >Always depressed to see researchers described as 'qualitative' presumably >as opposed to 'quantitative' and therefore presumed to be innumerate, >instead perhaps of being illiterate. > >Sigh. > >Julian > >> On 17 Oct 2017, at 21:06, Stone, Lynda wrote: >> >> >> Hello All! >> >> Here is a description of job opening for a qualitative researcher >> grounded in human development and interested in educational settings? >> >> >> Responsibilities include: >> ? Teaching undergraduate and graduate courses in Child/Human >>Development, specifically courses related to qualitative research >>methodology and areas of interest; >> ? Maintaining a rigorous program of research related to school- and/or >>community-based qualitative research; >> ? Supervising and sponsoring student scholarship; assisting with >>advising and curriculum development/assessment; >> ? Working collegially with other faculty; and >> ? Contributing to service in the department, college, university, and >>profession. >> >> >> Required Qualifications >> >> ? An earned Ph.D. in Child/Human Development, Applied Developmental >>Psychology, Developmental Psychology, Developmental Science, Education, >>and >> Psychology, or an equivalent program. ABD candidates will be >>considered. If ABD, all degree requirements must be completed by August >>2018 >> ? Specialization in qualitative research methods with a strong emphasis >>in developmental theory. >> >> >> Preferred Qualifications >> >> ? Demonstrated leadership potential; >> ? Interpersonal skills; >> ? Ability to work with children, students, families, and communities >>representing diverse populations from diverse backgrounds; >> ? Demonstrated experience and effectiveness in college level, >>undergraduate, and/or graduate level teaching; >> ? Clearly defined interdisciplinary program of qualitative research and >>publication focusing on children, adolescents, and/or young adults, or >>demonstrated potential for establishing such a record; >> ? Experience in educational settings and/or curriculum development. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Lynda Stone, Ph.D. >> Professor >> Child Development >> CSUS/UC-Links After-school Program Director >> > From gutierkd@gmail.com Tue Oct 17 20:53:09 2017 From: gutierkd@gmail.com (Kris Gutierrez) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:53:09 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: job-CSU Sacramento In-Reply-To: References: <262AA420-C566-4810-8A1D-2B1156CDA2D7@manchester.ac.uk> Message-ID: <9FC66B0A-837F-44EB-9A11-F4DE075A9DDB@gmail.com> Well said, Lynda! Kris D. Guti?rrez Carol Liu Professor Graduate School of Education Prolepsis Design Collaborative University of California, Berkeley 5629 Tolman Hall Berkeley, CA 94720-1670 gutierrkd@berkeley.edu > On Oct 17, 2017, at 8:30 PM, Stone, Lynda wrote: > > Hi again Julian?just saw this response. > > There was a reason for the qualitative emphasis and it had more to do with > competencies with > qualitative rather than lack of quantitative methodological knowledge?I am > assuming folks would have both. > However, I have discovered that those who attain there PhD?s here in > traditional human development programs (at least those who > apply for our positions) often have only a superficial knowledge of > qualitative research and no experience with it, as this is the case > with many of our faculty who are well trained to do laboratory research?- > The best approach, of course, is to generate an interesting research > question and then utilize whatever methods are appropriate for this > question. So the emphasis in the job call was to meet programmatic needs. > I hope this helps you understand why ?qualitative? was placed in the > requirement? My guess is that degrees in human development in your > setting might offer course work and practical experience in both methods, > as did my training. > > Sincerely, > -lynda > > > > > > > Lynda Stone, Ph.D. > Professor > Child Development > CSUS/UC-Links After-school Program Director > > > > > > On 10/17/17, 2:35 PM, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Julian > Williams" julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Lynda >> >> Always depressed to see researchers described as 'qualitative' presumably >> as opposed to 'quantitative' and therefore presumed to be innumerate, >> instead perhaps of being illiterate. >> >> Sigh. >> >> Julian >> >>> On 17 Oct 2017, at 21:06, Stone, Lynda wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hello All! >>> >>> Here is a description of job opening for a qualitative researcher >>> grounded in human development and interested in educational settings? >>> >>> >>> Responsibilities include: >>> ? Teaching undergraduate and graduate courses in Child/Human >>> Development, specifically courses related to qualitative research >>> methodology and areas of interest; >>> ? Maintaining a rigorous program of research related to school- and/or >>> community-based qualitative research; >>> ? Supervising and sponsoring student scholarship; assisting with >>> advising and curriculum development/assessment; >>> ? Working collegially with other faculty; and >>> ? Contributing to service in the department, college, university, and >>> profession. >>> >>> >>> Required Qualifications >>> >>> ? An earned Ph.D. in Child/Human Development, Applied Developmental >>> Psychology, Developmental Psychology, Developmental Science, Education, >>> and >>> Psychology, or an equivalent program. ABD candidates will be >>> considered. If ABD, all degree requirements must be completed by August >>> 2018 >>> ? Specialization in qualitative research methods with a strong emphasis >>> in developmental theory. >>> >>> >>> Preferred Qualifications >>> >>> ? Demonstrated leadership potential; >>> ? Interpersonal skills; >>> ? Ability to work with children, students, families, and communities >>> representing diverse populations from diverse backgrounds; >>> ? Demonstrated experience and effectiveness in college level, >>> undergraduate, and/or graduate level teaching; >>> ? Clearly defined interdisciplinary program of qualitative research and >>> publication focusing on children, adolescents, and/or young adults, or >>> demonstrated potential for establishing such a record; >>> ? Experience in educational settings and/or curriculum development. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Lynda Stone, Ph.D. >>> Professor >>> Child Development >>> CSUS/UC-Links After-school Program Director >>> >> > > From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Wed Oct 18 00:49:45 2017 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 07:49:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <1508190552093.73064@iped .uio.no> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1274098540.156876.1508312985170@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Andy, Julian and Huw are welcome! Let them give us the honour of their stepping in so that non-theological promotion is obtained. To tell you the truth my biggest problem is not units of analysis but my people. Grenfell was down . We got to be in tears. Your people were slaughtered , we got in moaning. My people are drowned in practical theology. Marx is a ghost here and at times a plea for destruction. Our region is red with Blood every side. It's not a matter of tens and twenties. It's millions. It's not just Mogols who ruined us. The grandeur and greatness of the Great Britain (as Capital) also shared our atrocities. The East Indian Company chained whole nations. The benefits came to your holy land. Our sense of nationality was victimized by your Churchill/s. The World now thinks it's our theology which causes beheading and heinous crimes. All hidden complicity got underway so that a West and not Arabic Spring might get initiated. The non-obedient eastern dictators were down one after another to the worst situation of being destroyed. People thought it was they who acted ignorant of what armaments in word and iron had caused their soon-to-be observed fortune. Their dictatorship did not change their terrain but the foreign one did. But the West dictators got to be known as democracy/freedom promoters. The enormity of the falling bombs got to such a quality state that it gave birth to the delivery! of local bombs not having been ever thought of instead of reaching bread and water to the people. Shortly what you (your capital) preserved for us was the very theology. Your capital has ever been and is now being making any and every effort to penetrate our lives not our markets. It sells our people for quantities not qualities. Sanctions are the Humanitarian? weapons deployed against us. Military invasion is the lot and nightmare of every night of our people. We want to get into action as to the good intentions of Marx of whom your are a theorizer but we have been paralyzed and the paralysis is getting worse each minute. The little you might feel I've learned has been obtained here to the last-long appraised intentions of Mike Cole ; I could not have the honourable choice of attending your classes. And if we say people deserve the rulers they have ...?? In 74 I feel like more than 85. A few friends know about this. Yet I try to do my lessons. What else could I do in old age and retiredness but to think of the abc/s of Marx? It's Marx who might link us together ; other factors cardinally void/null. World will not get in peace if existing polarization continues and we won't lose hope and continue to be here despite all supposedly poverty of discussions but wholeheartedly like to have you beside us here and in solidarity for our better lives.? With the warmest greetings and thanks Haydi? ? ? From: Andy Blunden To: "?eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Wednesday, 18 October 2017, 3:31:07 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Dear Haydi, my seemingly "rapid answer" reflects the fact that my answer came out of 50 years of studying Marx and /Capital/, so it is certainly not "off the cuff." Although Marx never used the term "unit of analysis" (only "economic germ cell") Vygotsky derived this idea from his study of Marx's /Capital/ and he was perfectly correct in doing so. It remains one of his most original contributions to science. I don't know where A N Leontyev got his idea about having 2 or 3 units of analysis for activity, but it was a brilliant and original insight. I don't believe that ANL saw that his idea was prefigured by Marx and Vygotsky, but I don't know and it is not important. A study of /Capital /reveals that Marx used two units of analysis, corresponding to two levels of activity. In the first 3 chapters, the unit is an exchange of commodities C-M-C, which elucidates the formation of value in the activity of the market. In chapter 4, he introduces the unit of capital M-C-M' which thereafter forms the units of analysis of capital. When I first mentioned this to Alfredo I pointed out that Marx's analysis of the uniform rate of profit relies on this unit, so I followed up with a quote in which Marx (not Andy) talks of "capitals" and competition between them in the formation of a rate of profit. One of the side-benefits of identifying the unit of capital as a firm, is that it makes it quite explicit that *capital is a form of human activity*, not something extramundane which somehow magically expands itself. None of this is theology, but important methodological insights which all of us here, who have had the benefit of studying Vygotsky and Leontyev, can bring to our understanding of Marx. It is about ideas not people. This fact that there can be more than one unit of analysis in a science is not novel. In biology, it is not only the cell but also the organism which are units. Darwin's theory of evolution (along with the discovery of the cell, the founding idea of modern biology) depends on the organism (rather than the cell or the species) as the "molar unit" of biology. "Species" is a unit at a third level, with many species together forming an eco-system. These are issues of science not theology because every graduate student or researcher can use Vygotsky's concept of "unit of analysis" for original research. If all they know is "Vygotsky's unit of analysis was word meaning" there is no possibility of using this concept in their own research. If a methodological insight is going to be useful, it is essential to have at least several examples of its use to generalise from. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 18/10/2017 2:00 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > > Dear all, >? > From where I stopped : >? > > --My focus was on rejection of the existence of a > contradiction between ANL?s use of singular/plural > activity/activities and arguing that CAPITAL is not to be > torn up into pieces/parts. Talking of moments and wholes > does not necessarily mean involving units of analysis. >? >? > -- No, Alfredo. A unit of capital is a firm (or company). >? > > Am I confused? Or can I justify myself in attributing a > rush for a rapid answer which might be incorrect? A whole > investment in what is to be proved otherwise just on the > next post? I mean Alfredo?s ?a commodity as the unit of > analysis of the Capital". This time we should take a firm > with specific connotation inovatively coined as ?a > commodity?. >? > Is not this to justify our previous notes? In such cases > we say ?A hen has just one leg?. At one time , Modern > State is based on the Whole idea in contrast to old > Medieval State. At another time , Aggregates are supreme. > Has anybody seen Leontiev taking Firms Proper as > Activities proper? >? > > In the USSR , there were NOT firms , only the State. Andy > does not say here if his State is whole or aggregate. But > just one can guess he takes it as a Whole. For our > discussion no problem if he takes it as an aggregate > taking into account that a whole needs moments an > aggregate parts. But what is he referring to when he says > Leontiev takes micro and Molar in one complex? > Inferencially he might have taken a firm as micro in > contrast to Molar the more so that he has already issued a > firm as an activity But But dear Andy if I?m not so > confused even mad , you said in the USSR there were no > firms no individual activities for that matter ?? What > micros then are you referring to that Leontiev too has > drawn it into his discussion? Would it not be better for > you to argue that poor L was in total loss of finding the > other leg of our Hen?? >? > > --Andy?If you are so kind to take this as a moderate > critique , I then dare repeat if you are an orthodox > Marxist (also my mentor on that) why you in a brief span > of time let yourself jump up from a thousand times ?I?m an > activity theorist? to a point of suppressing it as sort of > a null/void? ?Now that the science of Linguistics has > progressed so far , talk of activity has gone into waste > of time?. ?not the proper quote but at least near to it. > This was just short of a multitude. > > > I wonder if this one suffices you to be an orthodox > Marxist for your addressee to be a counter one . > Incidentally I wanted to tell you there are much evidence > that you are a Marxist why then you bring up those words > against Marx? Many years back I asked you : Are you then > Hegelian? You said , No! I mean at the time also there was > overtone and exaggeration on Hegel. >? > > --Damn! Commodity exchange is the unit of burgeons > society... I have to study more! Thanks Andy >? > "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist > mode of production prevails, presents itself as ?an > immense accumulation of commodities,?[1] *its unit being a > single commodity*. Our investigation must therefore begin > with the analysis of a commodity" >? >? > This must have been taken from Marx. And please Alfredo , > give us the footnote for [1] >? >? > Is not this ?immense accumulation of commodities? the very > Capital? If positive , then the unit not a ?firm? but a > commodity. > > > Because a commodity (not any goods or product for > subsistence or barter) as to the nature of its definition > has the antinomy within itself and again to its very > nature is forced to be exchanged and if my memory helps , > Marx even after entering the discussion of the exchange > phenomenon , returns the discussion back to the existence > of potentially both relative and equivalent to one single > commodity. >? > >? > --Yes , yes . What yes :-) ? There's the 'Unit of analysis > is a commodity'. ? to its roots , to its source , *to its > unit* ?? ?but capital ? with capital? >? > ? just to preserve this for later discussions : ...in > speech arising in collaborative activity. >? > > > Your point in the first paragraph is what I was trying to > convey to Haidy, to see if there is room there for common > ground between your positions. ? >? >? > > --Yes , and this was my answer : First my point in the > last paragraph was not which one is the unit of analysis. > But that why is it we cannot use such sentences or phrases > altogether. For that matter, I concluded that wholes as to > their nature are not susceptible to get torn up. They are > contiguous phenomena. >? > And I should add that I really do not find myself in a > position to receive such kind favours. Thank you! The > problem is either I have not read enough to understand > which I accept generally or that authorities see > themselves too legitimate to think of their occasional > drawbacks and then not to see the dwarfs smaller than they > deserve to be.? >? >? > Capitals are units of capital. The only whole is the world > market, within which units of capital grow and shrink, > consume one another and so on. A capital (i.e. a firm) is > not a "whole" in the true sense of the word, and I would > have an issue with anyone who wants to treat a firm as a > "system of activity" if there were any implication that this > means a "closed system." >? >? > --I just want to ask Alfredo if he quoted Marx and if as > he or any other folk understood it , the unit of > > analysis is a commodity. Presently no judgment. >? > > > --Sasha arrives! He confirms the unit of analysis to be a > substantial commodity. >? > We should have more of him. Let?s wait. >? >? > > I read Marx saying the same when writing this in the > German Ideology: >? > > "The production of ideas, of conceptions, of > consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the > material activity and the material intercourse of men-the > language of real life." >? > > ?And then again, >? > > "Language is as old as consciousness, language > is practical, real consciousness that exists for other men > as well, and only therefore does it also exist for me; > language, like consciousness, only arises from the need, > the necessity, of intercourse with other men." >? > > I do not see here some hierarchy of primaries and > secondaries, but rather immanence, humanity as a > productive force that has practical and communicative > aspects. But I am happy to be in the process of being > corrected about this. >? > > > --I wouldn?t think Sasha consciously mixes up exchanges of > goods with exchanges of commodities Alfredo. And as you > note , > > it depends on what social relation of what socio-economic > formation we base our argument .? >? > > > ?an orderliness that is self-generating and irreducible to > any of the communicating 'parties' ?irrespective of > whether these parties are engaged in any human material > productive activity or not or if their communication could > have any relationship to that process generally if not > locally or temporally--or their messages. >? > > > Don?t you think it sounds a bit dualistic? I addsomething > to your sentence please see if you again could confirm it. >? > > I remember the travel by plane all intermittent talk , > etc. Those talks were all mixed up with actions processes > affecting each other as Andy says. One could think of > partial independence of consciousness but not ultimate > segregation and separation. This was reserved for this > moment : Andy : ? just to preserve this for later > discussions : ...in speech arising in collaborative activity. > > But you also remarked : activity constituted in > communication. I talked about it. And about historical > essential precedence. But now generally intertwined. >? > > > I read Marx saying the same when writing this in the > German Ideology: >? > "The production of ideas, of conceptions, of > consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the > material activity and the material intercourse of men-the > language of real life." >? > > Is the language of real life here equal to the very > self-generating independent communication you mentioned? > > ?And then again, >? > "Language is as old as consciousness, language > is practical, real consciousness that exists for other men > as well, and only therefore does it also exist for me; > language, like consciousness, only arises from the need, > the necessity, of intercourse with other men." >? > I do not see here some hierarchy of primaries and > secondaries, but rather immanence, humanity as a > productive force that has practical and communicative > aspects. But I am happy to be in the process of being > corrected about this. >? > > > This is also a follow-up from the above. What about 'at > first'? Humanity thinks and speaks but further than the > Commune humans as relating to their relevant classes > either toil or exploit or double-deal staggering between > the two. >? > > --To our time zone , I began in the morning and now is > night. Andy?s last message needs a fresher mind. > > Now good night! >? > I hope this reaches you non-crumbled non-clattered. I > won't be able to view it. > > Best >? > Haydi >? >? > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Andy Blunden > *To:* Alfredo Jornet Gil ; "eXtended > Mind, Culture, Activity" ; Mike > Cole ; ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? > ; Ivan Uemlianin > ; Martin John Packer > ; Alexander Surmava > > *Sent:* Tuesday, 17 October 2017, 1:46:24 > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity and communication > > The idea of producing for exchange being something > essential outside of a world in which products are > exchanged is to my mind something as curious as something > being a hammer outside of a world in which there are > nails. In preparing the conceptual foundation of > /Capital/, Marx wrote the /Grundrisse /and in the > Introduction he makes clear that production, distribution, > exchange and consumption form a unity, a whole, and have > to be analysed as such: > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc2 > >? ? "Thus production, distribution, exchange and >? ? consumption form a regular syllogism; production is >? ? the generality, distribution and exchange the >? ? particularity, and consumption the singularity in >? ? which the whole is joined together." > > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 17/10/2017 8:49 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > So, not commodity exchange, but commodity production, > Sasha. That is of course in line with everything else you > can read in Marx, including the introductory paragraphs of > the German Ideology, and sounds right. Although I did not > think that 'exchange of goods' was synonymous > with 'exchange of commodities,' It is a whole different > thing, and what you are saying is that these are different > because of the type of relations of production. Sounds > right to me. > > There are theories that take communication to be an > exchange of words, or of signs, or of ideas as you write, > a 'negotiation of meanings' others say. But there are > alternatives to that too, some of which characterise the > communicative relation as a productive force, an > orderliness that is self-generating and irreducible to any > of the communicating 'parties' or their messages. Led by > W-M Roth, we have written about this. Taking that > perspective, and this may be because I am 'only' > a student, and one much less qualified than the one you > speak about in your message, it becomes very difficult for > me to have communication to be somehow secondary. As it's > been suggested here. I feel more comfortable thinking of > 'productive activity' or object oriented activity, as > manifesting both as practical activity and > as communicative activity; but not first the one and only > later the other. > > I read Marx saying the same when writing this in the > German Ideology: > > "The production of ideas, of conceptions, of > consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the > material activity and the material intercourse of men-the > language of real life." > > ?And then again, > > "Language is as old as consciousness, language > is practical, real consciousness that exists for other men > as well, and only therefore does it also exist for me; > language, like consciousness, only arises from the need, > the necessity, of intercourse with other men." > > I do not see here some hierarchy of primaries and > secondaries, but rather immanence, humanity as a > productive force that has practical and communicative > aspects. But I am happyto be in the process of being > corrected about this. > > Alfredo > > PS: The text by Ilyenkov that Sasha refers to is available > at Marxists.org, here: >? https://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/abstract/index.htm > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Alexander Surmava > > *Sent:* 16 October 2017 17:00 > *To:* ablunden@mira.net ; > eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Alfredo Jornet Gil; Mike > Cole; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Ivan Uemlianin; Martin John Packer > *Subject:* ???: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity and communication >? > Dear colleagues, > > Excuse me for the delay in responding to your previous > posts about Leontiev and Vygotsky. The problems that we > are discussing are so serious that it takes a long time to > think about them and formulate an answer. Especially in > English :-). > > Therefore, the main answer I hope to put on the XMCA no > earlier than tomorrow. > > But suddenly the discussion turned into an extremely > interesting side. I mean analysis of the logic of "Das > Kapital". It is discussed what can and should be properly > considered the unit of analysis of both Capital and ?Das > Kapital?, the world system of capitalism and its > reflection in Marx? theoretic masterpiece. At least two > hypotheses have been voiced. The first is that such a unit > is a separate " business", a capitalist firm. And the > second, that the unit of analysis is the exchange of goods. > > I think that I can hardly agree with both hypotheses. > It seems to me that for Marx the first, most abstract > stage of analysis is in no case the exchange of goods, but > the commodity itself. And not an abstract commodity, but a > commodity produced under capitalistic relations. > Therefore, the unit of analysis is strictly speaking the > very production of such a commodity. > > The exchange of goods occurs not only under capitalism, > but also under slavery, and under feudalism. This is not > an independent, not substantial concept. The exchange > depends on the mode of production, and not vice versa. > > The same can be applied to "communication" in psychology, > to the "exchange" of ideas, caresses or beatings. This > communication does not occur due to certain immanent laws > of interpersonal communication, but entirely depends on > the collaborative object-oriented activity (predmetnoy > deyatelnosty), collective labor of historically determined > individuals. In turn, the nature of their collective work, > depends not on the distribution of genes in their genomes, > but on the distribution of the means of production, on the > distribution of labor instruments. Let us emphasize, not > on the distribution of verbal signs, not on ideology, but > on the distribution of the most material weapons of human > activity. > > With communist greetings :-) , > Sasha > > P.S. By the way, I enthusiastically welcome the fact that > our discussion has switched from discussing Vygotsky's > "units" to discussing the most abstract category of "Das > Kapital" of Marx, that is, from a pale copy, to the > original. By the way, in the future it might be > interesting to re-read the "Dialectics of the abstract and > concrete in scientific and theoretical thinking" by EV > Ilyenkov. This work contains an elaborate analysis of the > method of Marx, in comparison with which Vygotsky's > methodological reflexion seems to be something quite > student-like. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *??:* Andy Blunden > > *????:* Alfredo Jornet Gil > ; "xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu" > > > *??????????:* ???????????, 16 ??????? 2017 15:51 > *????:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and > communication > > Capitals are units of capital. The only whole is the world > market, within which units of capital grow and shrink, > consume one another and so on. A capital (i.e. a firm) is > not a "whole" in the true sense of the word, and I would > have an issue with anyone who wants to treat a firm as a > "system of activity" if there were any implication that this > means a "closed system." > > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 16/10/2017 11:42 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > > > Your point in the first paragraph is what I was trying to > > convey to Haidy, to see if there is room there for common > > ground between your positions. ? > > > > Alfredo > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Andy Blunden > > > *Sent:* 16 October 2017 14:39 > > *To:* Alfredo Jornet Gil; > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > > activity and communication > > > > > > Yes, yes, Alfredo! But what is often overlooked is that > > the aim of Marx's research is not commodity exchange (in > > itself a harmless business) but capital. But he does not > > *start* with capital, but goes down to its roots, its > > source, in the circulation of commodities. > > > > Compare with Vygotsky's analysis of the intellect > > (thinking). Word meanings are *not* the subject matter of > > Vygotsky's research (who gives a damn!?), but concepts! > > But he does not start with concepts, but goes down to its > > roots, its source, in speech arising in collaborative > > activity. Actually, AN Leontyev missed this, as can be > > seen in his trenchant attack on Vygotsky in his ?Study of > > the Environment in the Pedological Works of L. S. Vygotsky". > > > > Andy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 16/10/2017 11:31 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > >> Damn! Commodity exchange is the unit of burgeons > society... I have to study more! Thanks Andy > >> > >> "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist > mode of production prevails, presents itself as ?an > immense accumulation of commodities,?[1] its unit being a > single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin > with the analysis of a commodity" > >> > >> Alfredo > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > on behalf of > Andy Blunden > > >> Sent: 16 October 2017 14:22 > >> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity > and communication > >> > >> Just to illustrate that I am being an orthodox Marxist > here, > >> from Chapter 10, Vol. 3 of Capital: > >> > >>? ? "In the case of capitals of average, or approximately > >>? ? average, composition, the price of production is thus > >>? ? the same or almost the same as the value, and the profit > >>? ? the same as the surplus-value produced by them. All > >>? ? other capitals, of whatever composition, tend toward > >>? ? this average under pressure of competition. But since > >>? ? the capitals of average composition are of the same, or > >>? ? approximately the same, structure as the average social > >>? ? capital, all capitals have the tendency, regardless of > >>? ? the surplus-value produced by them, to realize the > >>? ? average profit, rather than their own surplus-value in > >>? ? the price of their commodity, i.e., to realize the > >>? ? prices of production." > >> > >> Andy > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> Andy Blunden > >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > >> On 16/10/2017 11:18 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > >>> No, Alfredo. A unit of capital is a firm (or company). > It is > >>> impossible to explain the formation of a rate of > profit (at > >>> least as Marx does in /Capital/) without the conception of > >>> units of capital, namely, firms and the competition > between > >>> them. Firms are of course, what Engestrom would call a > >>> "system of activity" or I would call a "project" and > >>> Leontyev almost could call an activity. But in the USSR > >>> there were no firms, only the state. It is perhaps A N > >>> Leonytev's greatest discovery? that there are both > micro and > >>> molar units in any complex process. True in Psychology and > >>> true in political economy. Whereas exchange of commodities > >>> is an artefact-mediated action, a firm is an activity, a > >>> specific aggregate of actions, directed towards the > >>> quantitative maximisation of the value of the unit of > capital. > >>> > >>> English is not a perfect language either. : ) The word > >>> "consciousness" has the unfortunate connotation of being a > >>> mass noun (or continuous substance) whereas it is know > only, > >>> of course, in individual "consciousnesses" or "minds." But > >>> it sounds so clumsy to say "a consciousness." > >>> > >>> Andy > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> Andy Blunden > >>> > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > >>> On 16/10/2017 11:07 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > >>>> Haydi, > >>>> > >>>> I think Andy does not mean 'one capital' versus > 'several capitals', for, if I read Andy adequately, > Capital is for him not a unit but rather the whole of > which commodity exchange is the unit. Thus, the germ cell > of Capital is thus not Capital, or 'a' Capital, which you > seem to attribute to Andy; just as I don't think he is > arguing that there is consciousness, and then many > consciousnesses. So it may be that you two agree more than > disagree, judging by your last paragraph. > >>>> > >>>> Whether his position on singular and plurals is more > or less adequate than another positions, that I leave it > up to the discussion. > >>>> > >>>> Alfredo > >>>> ________________________________________ > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > on behalf of > ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? > > >>>> Sent: 16 October 2017 09:45 > >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Andy Blunden > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity and communication > >>>> > >>>> Thank you David for your explanation! Though for me > it needs more than one read. > >>>> > >>>> The point was whether use of activity and activities > in Leontiev is a contradiction. Whoever L was and whatever > he believed in , he was not so negligent to the point of > posing activity first and immediately after that > recounting 'activities'. Translation ruled out a committed > error. Then such a blundering display must have a > justification rather than a misunderstanding in comprehension. > >>>> > >>>> In one sense all things are related. The more so with > the Monistic View. We have so many corporate and > incorporate things , two of them so problematic > communication and practical activity since Descartes and > we are determined to avoid Dualism and refer and return > all phenomena to that same thing , the one substance. In > the actuality of the world , there's nothing discrete , > that is , absolutely unrelated. Is that pretext for us not > to see this unbounded versatility and hues and dues as > distinct coloring? Maybe one of the ways was for man to > let Nature go unrestrained?? But man also did not come of > its own will. > >>>> > >>>> The sole way destined or open to Man was of its > Nature to engage with the surrounding. To deal with it > sensually and subjectively/agently. Then Man in one time > interpreted all phenomena as they appeared to him. But he > grew up further than his infantile period. He learnt to > delve into matters , go deeper and deeper. With one > spectacle (plane) he observed how that single substance > let its attributes multiply themselves into different > shapes and colors and Modes. With another plane of the one > spectacle observed the variation of the Modes themselves. > I mean Ontology and Epistemology not yet separate from > each other as I used a pair of planes for that matter. > >>>> > >>>> Then we usually don't use a nail-clipper for > alterations and manipulations in Genes. Or devices for > Genes for our feeding and nutrition. It is then within > these constraints that corporate and incorporate phenomena > differ. Singles and plurals differ. Discrete and the > indivisible differ. Parts and Moments differ. Wholes and > mere entities differ. A process and a product resulting > from that process differ. No justification to interchange > them because of the use of A in front of them. > >>>> > >>>> I wonder if this is true for others too. For me it's > difficult to accept to say "this capital that capital" > "those 8 capitals united" "capitals of the world dissolved > into unanimity". If I'm correct in this , it's , I think , > because Capital is a Whole , coming out of a long process > of functions and disfunctions , moments of circulations > and transient stagnation , booms and boosts and drawbacks > and failures. The moment of its conception in the exchange > of commodities up to the discovery of the private > appropriation of the surplus value to the point of > harnessing every means to penetrate each tight corner of > the big World. > >>>> > >>>> Best > >>>> Haydi > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>? ? ? From: David Kellogg > > >>>>? To: Andy Blunden >; "eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity" > > >>>>? Sent: Monday, 16 October 2017, 2:21:12 > >>>>? Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity and communication > >>>> > >>>> Of course, neither an object nor a process is > discrete (or even, as Andy > >>>> says, "discreet"). Who can tell me where a mountain > river ends and the > >>>> alluvial plain begins? Certainly not Cezanne or the > phenomenologists who so > >>>> loved him. Yet a mountain is most assuredly an > object, just as surely > >>>> as climbing the mountain to ascertain its degree of > montagnitude is a > >>>> process. > >>>> > >>>> This last week I've been struggling through the > "Curriculum Reforms" > >>>> wrought by three right wing governments in Norway, > Finland, and New > >>>> Zealand. Like Catalonia, these are all countries > where unpopular coalitions > >>>> of right parties are replacing a much more popular > but obviously > >>>> unsuccessful social democratic coalition of left > parties. In Norway and in > >>>> Finland, the coalition actually includes the far > right, neo-fascist, > >>>> anti-immigrant parties, and in New Zealand it > includes the ACT, that is, an > >>>> "association of consumers and taxpayers" whose main > interest is cutting > >>>> education budgets, starting by making teachers and > students fight each > >>>> other for scarce resources in the form of "block grants". > >>>> > >>>> Now, all of these governments are more or less bound > by something called > >>>> DeSeCo, which is short for Describe and Select > Competences. This is because > >>>> right-wing ideology sees education not as a public > good but as a commodity, > >>>> to be judged by tangible results and priced > accordingly. This presents a > >>>> real theoretical problem for right-wingers, because > they ALSO see that > >>>> "flexible labor markets" and "entrepreneurial spirit" > means that there > >>>> isn't any way of deciding on what skills or even what > knowledge the > >>>> "economy of the future" will demand. > >>>> > >>>> We can see this in the emphasis on "competence". > Competence is not a thing > >>>> or a process, and it is neither discrete nor > discreet. Of course, if you > >>>> are a linguist, competence is something Chomsky > thought of in the sixties, > >>>> an abstract form of knowledge in a hypothetical > native speaker-hearer in an > >>>> imaginary homogenous speech community. It is > "discrete" in the sense of > >>>> being nowhere and nowhen connectible to performance > in any way. It is > >>>> therefore "discreet" in the sense of being > untestable--as soon as you test > >>>> it, you have a form of performance, not competence. > It's like standing in > >>>> front of a classroom with a picture of a guy swimming > and trying to teach > >>>> the expression "i can swim". What you have in the > picture is not "I can > >>>> swim"; it's manifestly "he is swimming". > >>>> > >>>> But in DeSeCo, you get these lists of competences, > which are set up as if > >>>> they were discrete so you can list them on a > Powerpoint slide and sell them > >>>> to ministries of education. And the real selling > point is that, on the one > >>>> hand, because they are all "meta-skills" and > "meta-knowledges", they don't > >>>> have any practical outcome or real commitment to a > job and a livelihood. > >>>> And on the other, they sound terribly powerful when > you phrase them as > >>>> "learning to learn" or "transversal competence" or > "meta-cognitive skills" > >>>> or something like that. Jobs, in other words, are > discretionary. After > >>>> centuries of promising jobs and livelhood in return > for school and boredom, > >>>> the Western economies have decided that sticks are > cheaper than carrots, > >>>> and the thing to do is simply to rule people who > don't have educational > >>>> certificates out of the job market rather than try to > provide > >>>> actual know-how and factual know-that. > >>>> > >>>> Here are my four favorites (i.e. the four that we > stress in our own > >>>> curricular reform here in South Korea): > >>>> > >>>> interpersonal competence (sociability, the ability to > 'be alone with > >>>> others' as Hughlings Jackson put it) > >>>> cultural competence (enculturation, the ability to > understand traditions, > >>>> mores, and norms) > >>>> creative competence (intelligence, innovation, yadda > yadda) > >>>> individual competence (the ability to dress yourself, > feed yourself, and > >>>> show up for an interview where you will not be > offered a job) > >>>> > >>>> Vygotsky, as usual, has a better idea--it's a > mountain. We just turn the > >>>> DeSeCO PPT upside down. Then we add each > competence---freedom, creative > >>>> intelligence, encultured habits and tastes, and > instiinctive > >>>> sociability--as a superstructure? erected on the > basis of the previous one: > >>>> > >>>> free will (the ability to make choices that are not > necessarily intelligent > >>>> or habitual or instinctive) > >>>> intelligence (the ability to make choices that are > not habitual or > >>>> instinctive but nevertheless adaptive) > >>>> enculturation (the ability to make choices that are > not instinctive but > >>>> conform to the choices that have proven successful in > the now socialized > >>>> environment) > >>>> instinct (the ability to make choices that are > responsive to the > >>>> environment and which conform to the choices that > have proven successful in > >>>> phylogenesis) > >>>> > >>>> Are theses objects? Of course, if we say so. And > processes? Well, how else > >>>> could they have come about? What they are not, > however, is either > >>>> "discrete" or "discreet": they are clearly linked to > each other, and they > >>>> are all linked, through the lower layer, to > adaptations ot the environment. > >>>> > >>>> And there's the rub--where the rubber meets the road. > The real question, > >>>> for our teachers and for our children, is about what > will happen to them > >>>> now that these competences can no longer be redeemed > in jobs. Will the > >>>> anti-Faustian bargain of exchanging your youth for a > >>>> stable middle-aged livelihood survive? > >>>> > >>>> David Kellogg > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Haydi, you say "AN activity is not a thing ; it's a > >>>>> process." I wonder then what is a thing which is not > also a > >>>>> process? (I interpret "thing" as meaning "something > >>>>> discrete," otherwise your objection makes no sense.) The > >>>>> point is that Hegel does not make this dichotomy - every > >>>>> thing is also a process and vice versa. That a > process is > >>>>> also discreet is important because it is only thanks > to its > >>>>> discreteness that we can cognise the process and in fact > >>>>> only thanks to its discreteness that a process can > affect > >>>>> anything else. To speak of processes which are not also > >>>>> discrete is to speak in abstractions. > >>>>> > >>>>> On this point, when Hegel puts ideas above matter, > it has to > >>>>> be realised that for Hegel "ideas" are social > practices - he > >>>>> is simply place human practice at the centre of > human life > >>>>> and its comprehension, rather than the mechanical and > >>>>> chemical processes of Nature. If you think that > "ideas" are > >>>>> simply chimera inside our heads, then, of course, > Hegel's > >>>>> idealism seems like madness. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, all the Marxists have blasted Hegel. As they must. > >>>>> Otherwise they must end up advocates of Constitutional > >>>>> Monarchy. But while Marx uses almost every mention > he makes > >>>>> of Hegel to criticise him, often in extreme terms, > it can go > >>>>> unnoticed the extent to which in practice Marx > follows Hegel > >>>>> in philosophy. Of course Marx is not equal to Hegel, but > >>>>> simple formulae do not contribute to understanding > the relation. > >>>>> > >>>>> Andy > >>>>> > >>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> Andy Blunden > >>>>> > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > >>>>> On 15/10/2017 6:51 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > >>>>>> Andy, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Let me first apologize to David Kellog because in > others' > >>>>>> wandering and perplexity it was he who in his > reading of > >>>>>> Gramsci's prison letters came across this point and > made > >>>>>> you not only accept the inappropriateness of Hegel's > >>>>>> headstand as Crowning every worldly affair deriving > from > >>>>>> the People's Heads "Idea" , "Absolute" but also > >>>>>> intensifying this point with more examples and > references > >>>>>> from Engels' "utopian versus genuine socialism" on your > >>>>>> part. Of course you've been helping us on many > occasions > >>>>>> and? you're very welcome for this nothing to be denied. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> At this point we have no problem with translation. > >>>>>> Leontiev meant it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Suppose that ANL does not know "individual" which > is very > >>>>>> ambiguous because in what then one should seek the > >>>>>> embodiment of the "particular" and if one takes the > very > >>>>>> particular as individual , then everything gets > mixed up . > >>>>>> Then what about you who stick firmly on individual > >>>>>> discrete detached activities as an objection to Sasha's > >>>>>> sole ACTIVITY as theoretical understanding. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As you well know even AN activity is not a thing ; > it's a > >>>>>> process. And you once distinguished between GENERAL > WORK > >>>>>> ACTIVITY and LABOUR ACTIVITY or VALORIZATION ACTIVITY > >>>>>> which was quite right and timely though you > recently gave > >>>>>> differing definitions in no way harmonious to your > >>>>>> previous definitions. But the main problem is blending > >>>>>> clarity in expression with concrete in theory. No doubt > >>>>>> you're a Fan of Hegel. I should repeat myself : > Hegel is a > >>>>>> hero of theoretical concepts. In theorizing , and > for him > >>>>>> to explicate the Essence of Phenomena , he begins with > >>>>>> apparently concrete things as ABSTRACTS finally reaches > >>>>>> CONCRETE UNIVERSALS as concepts. And here we again very > >>>>>> surprisingly see you put your finger upon what you > should > >>>>>> have known in person is contrary to your own erudition. > >>>>>> Turning Hegel down as believing in discrete abstracts. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And now to his son's comment : What individual are you > >>>>>> pursuing? Your Hegel sees phenomena in their relations. > >>>>>> According to him and also according to ANL ACTIVITY > as a > >>>>>> unit of Life is Molar non-additive. He even does > not see > >>>>>> operations as single acts. It's a matter of the > angle of > >>>>>> vision not detachment and concreteness. If his son had > >>>>>> talked of concreteness in moments of activity , > then you > >>>>>> were right in your objections and oppositions. You > please > >>>>>> give us your last definition of activity here (not in > >>>>>> lengthy references) so that we can have a discerning > >>>>>> option. > >>>>>> So far to remove the problem we should accept > operations > >>>>>> are separately and independently carried out ; > actions in > >>>>>> their own are carried out ; activities are carried out > >>>>>> arbitrarily. And these are done to the realization > of man > >>>>>> as the ensemble of social relations based on some > >>>>>> infrastructure. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hegel's metaphor has been thrown back at him by Marx , > >>>>>> Engels , Lenin , Vygotsky , Ilyenko , and many > others. If > >>>>>> you like to stand above all Giants of Marxism , it's > >>>>>> something perfectly and absolutely Personal as you're > >>>>>> speaking out loud! Then why give us so many references. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Haydi > >>>>>> > >>>>>> P.S. Alfredo! Though you have my previous private > response > >>>>>> concerning the matters you pose I see myself > accountable > >>>>>> to rewrite them to the Public. Thanks! > >>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>> *From:* Andy Blunden > > >>>>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, 15 October 2017, 5:35:40 > >>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity > >>>>>> and communication > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Haydi, partly the problem with ANL's > >>>>>> philosophy-as-we-know-it is simply a product of its > >>>>>> translation into English. But partly it is also in his > >>>>>> philosophy. As Victor Kaptelinin first pointed out > (so far > >>>>>> as I know), ANL knows the universal and the > particular but > >>>>>> he does not know the individual. And his son's > comment that > >>>>>> ANL did not conceive of Activity as being discrete > proves > >>>>>> this to be the case. Thus his concept of Activity > is not a > >>>>>> fully concrete concept. And this is not a product of > >>>>>> translation. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As David Kellogg has kindly pointed out to me, it > was Hegel > >>>>>> who actually first introduced this metaphor of people > >>>>>> "walking (or standing) on their heads." Personally, > I don't > >>>>>> think it has ever helped anyone understand the > defect of > >>>>>> Hegel's philosophy to throw this metaphor back at > him. As > >>>>>> demonstrated in this issue (the concept of > activity) it was > >>>>>> Hegel who understood that a concept must have all three > >>>>>> moments - universal, particular and individual. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Andy > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>> Andy Blunden > >>>>>> > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > >>>>>> On 15/10/2017 9:24 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > >>>>>>> Dear Mike, > >>>>>>> Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an > >>>>>> activist for his concreteness and clarifications is > >>>>>> crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot > >>>>>> ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes , > Parts , > >>>>>> and Moments. He personally provided us with > examples from > >>>>>> Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they > convert > >>>>>> Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced > with the > >>>>>> same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most > >>>>>> valuable contribution) does not begin with the > individual > >>>>>> case in isolation which phenomenologically > speaking (in > >>>>>> contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for > >>>>>> appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not > obtained > >>>>>> because one instance is considered detached from all > >>>>>> relations and its subservience to the service of the > >>>>>> Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is > particular in > >>>>>> some feature/s. And these particulars are > essential. With > >>>>>> other particulars in other individuals they are related > >>>>>> actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense , > this whole > >>>>>> could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life > itself. > >>>>>> Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is , > >>>>>> with category and concept only therefore , > following Marx > >>>>>> and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again > on his > >>>>>> feet (not that the firmament to that time did put > "idea" > >>>>>> on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on > their > >>>>>> heads but to put them again headstand thinking and > acting > >>>>>> with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just > >>>>>> with their brains. Then taking all options in > translation > >>>>>> even that of a Machine into consideration it does > not seem > >>>>>> to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of > >>>>>> Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of > >>>>>> activities thereafter. These activities are those > arising > >>>>>> from the properties of versatile objects in turn > arising > >>>>>> from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile > >>>>>> needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think > >>>>>> Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual > >>>>>> activities as moments with the broadest idea of the > >>>>>> Monistic Substantial Modes or States in Philosophical > >>>>>> terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn > integrate and > >>>>>> are dissolved into Monism of Substance. > >>>>>>> Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche > >>>>>> (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one > >>>>>> Substance) is already there with the organism > actively and > >>>>>> spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own , > >>>>>> positioning its due object and moving along its > contours > >>>>>> and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to > itself > >>>>>> , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and > >>>>>> bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as > >>>>>> novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with > >>>>>> Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with > a huge > >>>>>> gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of > >>>>>> consciousness , now apparently ascending to > "wording" and > >>>>>> "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration) > further > >>>>>> "communication" as something indispensable and > necessary > >>>>>> and inevitable to the realization of life affairs. > >>>>>>> Best > >>>>>>> Haydi > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>? ? ? From: mike cole > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>? To: Andy Blunden > >>>>>> >>; "eXtended Mind, Culture, > >>>>>> Activity" > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> Cc: Alexander Surmava > >>>>>> >>; ivan-dgf > >>>>>> > >>; Ivan > >>>>>> Uemlianin >>; > >>>>>> Haydi Zulfei > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>? Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50 > >>>>>>>? Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > >>>>>> activity and communication > >>>>>>> Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.Could someone post > >>>>>> the Russian text next to the English so that it is > >>>>>> possible to compare it with the translation? I spent > >>>>>> several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of > >>>>>> Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally > defeated > >>>>>> me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra > rubles in > >>>>>> my pocket. > >>>>>>> Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can > warrant us > >>>>>> a "true" translation. > >>>>>>> mike > >>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden > >>>>>> > >> wrote: > >>>>>>> The Progress Publishers English translation of > "Activity and > >>>>>>> Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of > >>>>>>> Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>? ? Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, > >>>>>>>? ? material life of the material subject. In the > narrower > >>>>>>>? ? sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is > a unit of > >>>>>>>? ? life, mediated by mental reflection, by > >>>>>>>? ? an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the > >>>>>>>? ? subject in the objective world. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The > >>>>>>> Development of Mind" we have: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an > >>>>>>> organism?s activity; the different activities that > realise > >>>>>>> its diverse vital relations with the surrounding > reality are > >>>>>>> essentially determined by their object; we shall > therefore > >>>>>>> differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively > >>>>>>> different] types of activity according to the > difference in > >>>>>>> their objects. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses > >>>>>>> "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The > effect has > >>>>>>> been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for > >>>>>>> English-speakers. It has generally been taken to > mean simply > >>>>>>> "category." The second does the same, but in > addition makes > >>>>>>> it evident that the plural does not refer to different > >>>>>>> activities, but to *types* of activity. This > blocks the > >>>>>>> possibility of forming a true concept of activity > >>>>>> altogether. > >>>>>>> With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your > claim is > >>>>>>> simply that "such an initial *category* can only be > >>>>>>> object-oriented activity" I have no objection, > supposing > >>>>>>> that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method > of units, > >>>>>>> even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Andy > >>>>>>> ------------------------------ > >>>>>> ------------------------------ > >>>>>>> Andy Blunden > >>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics > . > >>>>>> org/ablunden/index.htm > >>>>>>> On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: > >>>>>>>> Dear Andy! > >>>>>>>> I am glad that our communication was resumed > after many > >>>>>>>> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters > and files > >>>>>>>> and found that the problem of "object oriented > activity OR > >>>>>>>> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 > before > >>>>>>>> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is > serious and > >>>>>>>> it deserves to return to it today. > >>>>>>>> Last year I was close to being silent forever. > >>>>>>>> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy > postponed > >>>>>>>> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I > had the > >>>>>>>> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my > >>>>>>>> theoretical studies without entrusting this > matter to my > >>>>>>>> descendants :-). > >>>>>>>> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not > >>>>>>>> understand your question. What means the distinction > >>>>>>>> between singular and plural number in your > remark? Could > >>>>>>>> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the > >>>>>>>> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my > >>>>>>>> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not > coincide, > >>>>>>>> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the > theory of > >>>>>>>> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my > dissertation > >>>>>>>> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's > "Theory of > >>>>>>>> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, > >>>>>>>> having understood the theoretic meaning of your > claims to > >>>>>>>> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily > >>>>>>>> understand the essence of your objections to me. > >>>>>>>> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev > and I > >>>>>>>> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and > not as a > >>>>>>>> particular empirical case of its manifestation. > Therefore, > >>>>>>>> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. > Just like > >>>>>>>> Matter, Nature, or Substance. > >>>>>>>> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we > come across > >>>>>>>> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its > >>>>>>>> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the > >>>>>>>> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old > >>>>>>>> philosophers and that only the numerous > individual "atomic > >>>>>>>> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number > really > >>>>>>>> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar > >>>>>>>> positivism and empiricism. > >>>>>>>> However, all of this may not apply to your > position ... > >>>>>>>> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this > issue. > >>>>>>>> Best wishes > >>>>>>>> Sasha > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden > >>>>>>>> > >> > ?????(?): > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I'll ask Sasha a question. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial > >>>>>>>> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it > >>>>>> stands, > >>>>>>>> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be > >>>>>> that you > >>>>>>>> are translating it from a Russian statement that is > >>>>>> correct. > >>>>>>>> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as > in when I > >>>>>>>> say "every activity has an object."? But in your > expression > >>>>>>>> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and > >>>>>> unless > >>>>>>>> you are a religious person is not something which can > >>>>>> have a > >>>>>>>> specific object. All English translations of A N > Leontyev > >>>>>>>> make this mistake which has caused no end of > confusion > >>>>>> among > >>>>>>>> English-speakers. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Am I right? You meant "activities" not > "activity," just as > >>>>>>>> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Andy > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ------------------------------ > >>>>>> ------------------------------ > >>>>>>>> Andy Blunden > >>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics > . > >>>>>> org/ablunden/index.htm > >>>>>>>> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Dear Sasha, all, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding > >>>>>>>> response. I think you are right in your assertion > that we > >>>>>>>> are discussing some of the most fundamental > problems of > >>>>>>>> CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. > However, one > >>>>>>>> can see in the lack of response by other > members?? that > >>>>>>>> not everyone has the privilege of the time it > requires to > >>>>>>>> go through all of it. In any case, I continue > believing > >>>>>>>> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to > produce and I > >>>>>>>> hope it is/will be appreciated as such. > >>>>>>>>> If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, > I quote > >>>>>>>> from your response: > >>>>>>>>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial > category, > >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, > then for us > >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We > will > >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which > one can > >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including > >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious > that > >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented > >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication > from the > >>>>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. > But from > >>>>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and > other such > >>>>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or > >>>>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" > >>>>>>>>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework > >>>>>>>> according to which we are looking of the most > original > >>>>>>>> germ cell, the one from which all others can be > >>>>>>>> developed??, then object-oriented activity is > primary. I > >>>>>>>> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to > agree on > >>>>>> that. > >>>>>>>>> But ??once we are back to the development of a > concrete > >>>>>>>> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact > that, for > >>>>>>>> any child to participate in human forms of > object-oriented > >>>>>>>> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented > >>>>>>>> activity that also characterise any other > multi-cellular > >>>>>>>> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise > into those > >>>>>>>> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any > category > >>>>>>>> devised to account for human psyche needs to > agree with > >>>>>>>> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you > describe, is > >>>>>>>> this germ cell initial to human concrete > psychology, or is > >>>>>>>> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? > >>>>>>>>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others > answer > >>>>>>>> (which I hope some do). > >>>>>>>>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question > a try: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be > primary in > >>>>>>>> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of > teaching > >>>>>>>> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies > show, this > >>>>>>>> is only possible through *involvement* in collective > >>>>>>>> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is > primary > >>>>>>>> over, for example, the teaching of a language > (which is > >>>>>>>> only possible in and through object-oriented > activity). > >>>>>>>> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional > aspect of > >>>>>>>> the relation between adult and child, inherently > tied to > >>>>>>>> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this > >>>>>>>> object-oriented activity already ?characterised > by all > >>>>>>>> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually > >>>>>>>> uplifting' in the very moment in which we > describe such > >>>>>>>> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do > you get > >>>>>>>> collective activity without them? On this, and > precisely > >>>>>>>> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence > of Man", > >>>>>>>> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident > in that > >>>>>>>> case that communication is included in activity > and is its > >>>>>>>> essential component: without relation to another > >>>>>>>> person(s), activity is impossible'? (144). > Although I not > >>>>>>>> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, > here I can't > >>>>>>>> see how he can be wrong. > >>>>>>>>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of > >>>>>>>> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the > >>>>>>>> category of object-oriented activity, is most > primary. Let > >>>>>>>> me also note that ?there are other authors who have > >>>>>>>> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity > that you > >>>>>>>> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on > >>>>>>>> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom > >>>>>>>> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of > auto-affection' ( > >>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/ Incarnation-Philosophy- > >>>>>> Studies-Phenomenology- Existential/dp/0810131269 > >>>>>>>> ) > >>>>>>>>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology, > I wonder > >>>>>>>> whether ?we should be forced to choose between > activity > >>>>>>>> and communication. Is not the distinction just an > artefact > >>>>>>>> of a partial understanding of what it means > activity and > >>>>>>>> what it means communicating. I still feel that > >>>>>>>> communication, in the sense of addressivity that > Mikhailov > >>>>>>>> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, > or for > >>>>>>>> semiotics. If the question is whether practical > activity > >>>>>>>> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. > You don't > >>>>>>>> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my > perhaps > >>>>>>>> naive view, we ought to have a notion of > communication > >>>>>>>> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' > (as in > >>>>>>>> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), > for I > >>>>>>>> don't see how any practical activity can have any > sense > >>>>>>>> (and so be achieved) for any human outside > addressivity. > >>>>>>>> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity > we are > >>>>>>>> talking about; one machines could perform on > their own > >>>>>>>> without consciousness. ? > >>>>>>>>> Best wishes, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Alfredo > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ______________________________ __ > >>>>>>>>> From: Alexander Surmava > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 > >>>>>>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> .> edu>; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo > >>>>>>>> Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole > >>>>>>>>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > >>>>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more > interesting, > >>>>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But > before > >>>>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? > (replica > >>>>>>>> aside) :-) > >>>>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if > it is > >>>>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical > approach, > >>>>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its > framework > >>>>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a > >>>>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually > considered the > >>>>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. > >>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our > discussions > >>>>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the > >>>>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. > >>>>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the > principle > >>>>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism > compatible > >>>>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that > is, it is > >>>>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and > >>>>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. > Or maybe > >>>>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to > add to > >>>>>>>> these two principles something third, say - > "subjectness"? > >>>>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and > similar > >>>>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of > our inquiry > >>>>>>>> and without answering them in the most general > form, we > >>>>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. > But this > >>>>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, > >>>>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic > theoretical > >>>>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that > >>>>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological > theory, > >>>>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially > >>>>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a > consistently > >>>>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the > >>>>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical > >>>>>>>> verbiage. > >>>>>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ > >>>>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> > >>>>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical > >>>>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions > between > >>>>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. > >>>>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting > for me too > >>>>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to > education and > >>>>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from > Central > >>>>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > >>>>>>>>> Agitprop > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? sticks > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? in my teeth too, > >>>>>>>>> and I?d rather > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? compose > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? romances for you - > >>>>>>>>> more profit in it > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? and more charm. > >>>>>>>>> But I > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? subdued > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? myself, > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? setting my heel > >>>>>>>>> on the throat > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of my own song. > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Vladimir > Mayakovski > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ? ??? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????? ?????, > >>>>>>>>> ? ??? ?? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????? ?? ??? ? > >>>>>>>>> ???????? ??? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????. > >>>>>>>>> ?? ? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ???? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????, > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????????? > >>>>>>>>> ?? ????? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????? ?????. > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? ?????????? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again > forced > >>>>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to > >>>>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces > us to > >>>>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, > literally > >>>>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the > abstract > >>>>>>>> to the concrete. > >>>>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting > questions > >>>>>>>> about how to understand the principle of > interaction as > >>>>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented > >>>>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will > answer > >>>>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed > >>>>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated > by me in > >>>>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago > ORIGIN OF > >>>>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian > >>>>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? > >>>>>>>> ????????????. > >>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% > 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% > >>>>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . > >>>>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the > >>>>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is > >>>>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in > published in > >>>>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange > >>>>>>>> reason was not published then or later. > >>>>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your > questions, > >>>>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text > >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. > >>>>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would > like to > >>>>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the > interaction > >>>>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in > no case > >>>>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two > >>>>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false > approach > >>>>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism > has in my > >>>>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that > should > >>>>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is > obvious > >>>>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is > characteristic of the > >>>>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling > called the > >>>>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object > >>>>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are > not dealing > >>>>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with > the logic > >>>>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? > >>>>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the > >>>>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, > "positing" > >>>>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, > >>>>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the > chemism > >>>>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the > sense > >>>>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its > active and > >>>>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic > interaction, in > >>>>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is > active, > >>>>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, > objective. There > >>>>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, > but let us > >>>>>>>> return to this somehow later. > >>>>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my > graduation > >>>>>>>> work of 1988: > >>>>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) > relation > >>>>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction > of two > >>>>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the > sun taken > >>>>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is > >>>>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It > >>>>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively > due to > >>>>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) > >>>>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? > >>>>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the > plant > >>>>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). > >>>>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet > relation > >>>>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, > spontaneously > >>>>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital > >>>>>> activity. > >>>>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive > relation, > >>>>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not > >>>>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being > stimulated. > >>>>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism > does not > >>>>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with > >>>>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external > influence. > >>>>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it > is not > >>>>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) > can be > >>>>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the > organism > >>>>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external > thing > >>>>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into > >>>>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it > >>>>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of > >>>>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive > >>>>>> relation.? > >>>>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and > >>>>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the > >>>>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special > Mikhailovsky's > >>>>>>>> "addressing" to another person. > >>>>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered > >>>>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have > to try to > >>>>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human > consciousness > >>>>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has > been and > >>>>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology > >>>>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and > >>>>>> Ilyenkov. > >>>>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If > we want > >>>>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the > >>>>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract > to the > >>>>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers > >>>>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of > >>>>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct > method, to > >>>>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical > >>>>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to > choose one > >>>>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at > first > >>>>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a > >>>>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of > course > >>>>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic > >>>>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that > ".?the human > >>>>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single > >>>>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the > >>>>>>>> social relations.. " > >>>>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in > Vygotsky's > >>>>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a > purely > >>>>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to > >>>>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical > psychology > >>>>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from > Marx, then > >>>>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely > >>>>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us > with > >>>>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which > of them it > >>>>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first > place, > >>>>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have > to be > >>>>>>>> solved by ourselves. > >>>>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this > >>>>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A > >>>>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose > leader was AN > >>>>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov > undoubtedly > >>>>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object > oriented > >>>>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the > first, second > >>>>>>>> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a > group of > >>>>>>>> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was > inclined to > >>>>>>>> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, > >>>>>>>> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas > "Leningraders" > >>>>>>>> were for communication. > >>>>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our > >>>>>>>> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a > literal > >>>>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, > but our > >>>>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, > such a > >>>>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the > >>>>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered > something > >>>>>>>> rather indecent. > >>>>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of > >>>>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also > >>>>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic > victory, > >>>>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by > organizing > >>>>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was > >>>>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was > >>>>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the > post of > >>>>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the > dean of > >>>>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a > >>>>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader > >>>>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful > people in > >>>>>>>> the ideological department of the Central > Committee of > >>>>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of > scientific > >>>>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful > discussions in > >>>>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the > >>>>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed > supporters > >>>>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. > Davydov's > >>>>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology > of RAE > >>>>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. > >>>>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to > >>>>>>>> "communication" and "activity." > >>>>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial > category, > >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, > then for us > >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We > will > >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which > one can > >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including > >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious > that > >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented > >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication > from the > >>>>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. > But from > >>>>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and > other such > >>>>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or > >>>>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. > >>>>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, > but a fact > >>>>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive > >>>>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner > reflexivity and > >>>>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is > first > >>>>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic > level, > >>>>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex > dialectic > >>>>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in > the course > >>>>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is > traced. > >>>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external > >>>>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, > >>>>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, > >>>>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a > >>>>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of > man. > >>>>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive > Activity" > >>>>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are > taken not > >>>>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of > >>>>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, > but as > >>>>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s > >>>>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. > >>>>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me > in my > >>>>>>>> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a > >>>>>>>> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the > >>>>>>>> relation of objective activity and > "communication". In the > >>>>>>>> same time, reflexive object oriented activity, > that is, > >>>>>>>> the active relation of the subject to the object > and to > >>>>>>>> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the > human, as, > >>>>>>>> indeed, any other, psychology. > >>>>>>>>> ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? > ??? ????, > >>>>>>>> ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, > ?????? ???, > >>>>>>>> ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? > ??????????, > >>>>>>>> ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? > ????? > >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS > >>>>>>>> ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. > >>>>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most > suitable > >>>>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, > >>>>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the > problem of the > >>>>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large > >>>>>>>> English text > >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS > >>>>>>>> and read it to the end :-). > >>>>>>>>> ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE > AND HUMAN > >>>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? > ???????????? > >>>>>>>> ????????????. > >>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% > 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% > D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> > >>>>>>>>> ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? > >>>>>>>> ??????????? ???????? > >>>>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ > >>>>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% > >>>>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% > >>>>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% > >>>>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% > >>>>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% > >>>>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% > BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 > >>>>>>>> . > >>>>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > >>>>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more > interesting, > >>>>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But > before > >>>>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? > (replica > >>>>>>>> aside) :-) > >>>>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if > it is > >>>>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical > approach, > >>>>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its > framework > >>>>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a > >>>>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually > considered the > >>>>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. > >>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our > discussions > >>>>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the > >>>>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. > >>>>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the > principle > >>>>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism > compatible > >>>>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that > is, it is > >>>>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and > >>>>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. > Or maybe > >>>>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to > add to > >>>>>>>> these two principles something third, say - > "subjectness"? > >>>>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and > similar > >>>>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of > our inquiry > >>>>>>>> and without answering them in the most general > form, we > >>>>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. > But this > >>>>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, > >>>>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic > theoretical > >>>>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that > >>>>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological > theory, > >>>>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially > >>>>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a > consistently > >>>>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the > >>>>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical > >>>>>>>> verbiage. > >>>>>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ > >>>>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> > >>>>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical > >>>>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions > between > >>>>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. > >>>>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting > for me too > >>>>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to > education and > >>>>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from > Central > >>>>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > >>>>>>>>> Agitprop > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? sticks > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? in my teeth too, > >>>>>>>>> and I?d rather > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? compose > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? romances for you - > >>>>>>>>> more profit in it > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? and more charm. > >>>>>>>>> But I > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? subdued > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? myself, > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? setting my heel > >>>>>>>>> on the throat > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of my own song. > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Vladimir > Mayakovski > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ? ??? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????? ?????, > >>>>>>>>> ? ??? ?? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????? ?? ??? ? > >>>>>>>>> ???????? ??? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????. > >>>>>>>>> ?? ? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ???? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????, > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????????? > >>>>>>>>> ?? ????? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????? ?????. > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? ?????????? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again > forced > >>>>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to > >>>>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces > us to > >>>>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, > literally > >>>>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the > abstract > >>>>>>>> to the concrete. > >>>>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting > questions > >>>>>>>> about how to understand the principle of > interaction as > >>>>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented > >>>>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will > answer > >>>>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed > >>>>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated > by me in > >>>>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago > ORIGIN OF > >>>>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian > >>>>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? > >>>>>>>> ????????????. > >>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% > 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% > >>>>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . > >>>>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the > >>>>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is > >>>>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in > published in > >>>>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange > >>>>>>>> reason was not published then or later. > >>>>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your > questions, > >>>>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text > >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. > >>>>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would > like to > >>>>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the > interaction > >>>>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in > no case > >>>>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two > >>>>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false > approach > >>>>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism > has in my > >>>>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that > should > >>>>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is > obvious > >>>>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is > characteristic of the > >>>>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling > called the > >>>>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object > >>>>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are > not dealing > >>>>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with > the logic > >>>>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? > >>>>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the > >>>>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, > "positing" > >>>>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, > >>>>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the > chemism > >>>>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the > sense > >>>>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its > active and > >>>>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic > interaction, in > >>>>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is > active, > >>>>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, > objective. There > >>>>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, > but let us > >>>>>>>> return to this somehow later. > >>>>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my > graduation > >>>>>>>> work of 1988: > >>>>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) > relation > >>>>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction > of two > >>>>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the > sun taken > >>>>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is > >>>>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It > >>>>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively > due to > >>>>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) > >>>>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? > >>>>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the > plant > >>>>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). > >>>>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet > relation > >>>>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, > spontaneously > >>>>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital > >>>>>> activity. > >>>>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive > relation, > >>>>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not > >>>>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being > stimulated. > >>>>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism > does not > >>>>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with > >>>>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external > influence. > >>>>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it > is not > >>>>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) > can be > >>>>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the > organism > >>>>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external > thing > >>>>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into > >>>>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it > >>>>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of > >>>>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive > >>>>>> relation.? > >>>>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and > >>>>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the > >>>>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special > Mikhailovsky's > >>>>>>>> "addressing" to another person. > >>>>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered > >>>>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have > to try to > >>>>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human > consciousness > >>>>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has > been and > >>>>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology > >>>>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and > >>>>>> Ilyenkov. > >>>>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If > we want > >>>>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the > >>>>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract > to the > >>>>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers > >>>>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of > >>>>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct > method, to > >>>>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical > >>>>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to > choose one > >>>>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at > first > >>>>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a > >>>>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of > course > >>>>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic > >>>>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that > ".?the human > >>>>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single > >>>>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the > >>>>>>>> social relations.. " > >>>>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in > Vygotsky's > >>>>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a > purely > >>>>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to > >>>>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical > psychology > >>>>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from > Marx, then > >>>>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely > >>>>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us > with > >>>>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which > of them it > >>>>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first > place, > >>>>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have > to be > >>>>>>>> solved by ourselves. > >>>>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this > >>>>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A > >>>>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose > leader was > >>>>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov > undoubtedly > >>>>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object > oriented > >>>>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the > first, second > >>>>>>>> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", > whereas > >>>>>>>> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was > >>>>>>>> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In > other > >>>>>>>> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas > >>>>>>>> "Leningraders" were for "communication". > >>>>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our > >>>>>>>> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not > a literal > >>>>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, > but our > >>>>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, > such a > >>>>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the > >>>>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered > something > >>>>>>>> rather indecent. > >>>>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of > >>>>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also > >>>>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic > victory, > >>>>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by > organizing > >>>>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was > >>>>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was > >>>>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the > post of > >>>>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the > dean of > >>>>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a > >>>>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader > >>>>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful > people in > >>>>>>>> the ideological department of the Central > Committee of > >>>>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of > scientific > >>>>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful > discussions in > >>>>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the > >>>>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed > supporters > >>>>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. > Davydov's > >>>>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology > of RAE > >>>>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. > >>>>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to > >>>>>>>> "communication" and "activity." > >>>>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial > category, > >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, > then for us > >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We > will > >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which > one can > >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including > >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious > that > >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented > >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication > from the > >>>>>>>> object oriented activity, which is an attribute > property > >>>>>>>> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, > >>>>>>>> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting > plots, we > >>>>>>>> will never get life or object oriented activity > even with > >>>>>>>> the greatest diligence. > >>>>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, > but a fact > >>>>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive > >>>>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner > reflexivity and > >>>>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is > first > >>>>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic > level, > >>>>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex > dialectic > >>>>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in > the course > >>>>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is > traced. > >>>>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external > >>>>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, > >>>>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, > >>>>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a > >>>>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of > man. > >>>>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive > Activity" > >>>>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are > taken not > >>>>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of > >>>>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, > but as > >>>>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s > >>>>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. > >>>>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my > diploma > >>>>>>>> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist > >>>>>>>> theoretical solution to the question of the > relation of > >>>>>>>> objective activity and "communication". In the > same time, > >>>>>>>> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the > active > >>>>>>>> relation of the subject to the object and to > itself, is > >>>>>>>> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, > indeed, > >>>>>>>> any other, psychology. > >>>>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most > suitable > >>>>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, > >>>>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the > problem of the > >>>>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large > >>>>>>>> English text > >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS > >>>>>>>> and read it to the end :-). > >>>>>>>>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE > AND HUMAN > >>>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? > ???????????? > >>>>>>>> ????????????. > >>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% > 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% > D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> > >>>>>>>>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to > short > >>>>>>>> English one > >>>>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ > >>>>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% > >>>>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% > >>>>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% > >>>>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% > >>>>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% > >>>>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% > BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. > >>>>>>>>> Sasha > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Wed Oct 18 00:49:45 2017 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 07:49:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVudGVkIGFjdGl2aXR5?= =?utf-8?q?_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <1508190552093.73064@iped .uio.no> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1274098540.156876.1508312985170@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Andy, Julian and Huw are welcome! Let them give us the honour of their stepping in so that non-theological promotion is obtained. To tell you the truth my biggest problem is not units of analysis but my people. Grenfell was down . We got to be in tears. Your people were slaughtered , we got in moaning. My people are drowned in practical theology. Marx is a ghost here and at times a plea for destruction. Our region is red with Blood every side. It's not a matter of tens and twenties. It's millions. It's not just Mogols who ruined us. The grandeur and greatness of the Great Britain (as Capital) also shared our atrocities. The East Indian Company chained whole nations. The benefits came to your holy land. Our sense of nationality was victimized by your Churchill/s. The World now thinks it's our theology which causes beheading and heinous crimes. All hidden complicity got underway so that a West and not Arabic Spring might get initiated. The non-obedient eastern dictators were down one after another to the worst situation of being destroyed. People thought it was they who acted ignorant of what armaments in word and iron had caused their soon-to-be observed fortune. Their dictatorship did not change their terrain but the foreign one did. But the West dictators got to be known as democracy/freedom promoters. The enormity of the falling bombs got to such a quality state that it gave birth to the delivery! of local bombs not having been ever thought of instead of reaching bread and water to the people. Shortly what you (your capital) preserved for us was the very theology. Your capital has ever been and is now being making any and every effort to penetrate our lives not our markets. It sells our people for quantities not qualities. Sanctions are the Humanitarian? weapons deployed against us. Military invasion is the lot and nightmare of every night of our people. We want to get into action as to the good intentions of Marx of whom your are a theorizer but we have been paralyzed and the paralysis is getting worse each minute. The little you might feel I've learned has been obtained here to the last-long appraised intentions of Mike Cole ; I could not have the honourable choice of attending your classes. And if we say people deserve the rulers they have ...?? In 74 I feel like more than 85. A few friends know about this. Yet I try to do my lessons. What else could I do in old age and retiredness but to think of the abc/s of Marx? It's Marx who might link us together ; other factors cardinally void/null. World will not get in peace if existing polarization continues and we won't lose hope and continue to be here despite all supposedly poverty of discussions but wholeheartedly like to have you beside us here and in solidarity for our better lives.? With the warmest greetings and thanks Haydi? ? ? From: Andy Blunden To: "?eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Wednesday, 18 October 2017, 3:31:07 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Dear Haydi, my seemingly "rapid answer" reflects the fact that my answer came out of 50 years of studying Marx and /Capital/, so it is certainly not "off the cuff." Although Marx never used the term "unit of analysis" (only "economic germ cell") Vygotsky derived this idea from his study of Marx's /Capital/ and he was perfectly correct in doing so. It remains one of his most original contributions to science. I don't know where A N Leontyev got his idea about having 2 or 3 units of analysis for activity, but it was a brilliant and original insight. I don't believe that ANL saw that his idea was prefigured by Marx and Vygotsky, but I don't know and it is not important. A study of /Capital /reveals that Marx used two units of analysis, corresponding to two levels of activity. In the first 3 chapters, the unit is an exchange of commodities C-M-C, which elucidates the formation of value in the activity of the market. In chapter 4, he introduces the unit of capital M-C-M' which thereafter forms the units of analysis of capital. When I first mentioned this to Alfredo I pointed out that Marx's analysis of the uniform rate of profit relies on this unit, so I followed up with a quote in which Marx (not Andy) talks of "capitals" and competition between them in the formation of a rate of profit. One of the side-benefits of identifying the unit of capital as a firm, is that it makes it quite explicit that *capital is a form of human activity*, not something extramundane which somehow magically expands itself. None of this is theology, but important methodological insights which all of us here, who have had the benefit of studying Vygotsky and Leontyev, can bring to our understanding of Marx. It is about ideas not people. This fact that there can be more than one unit of analysis in a science is not novel. In biology, it is not only the cell but also the organism which are units. Darwin's theory of evolution (along with the discovery of the cell, the founding idea of modern biology) depends on the organism (rather than the cell or the species) as the "molar unit" of biology. "Species" is a unit at a third level, with many species together forming an eco-system. These are issues of science not theology because every graduate student or researcher can use Vygotsky's concept of "unit of analysis" for original research. If all they know is "Vygotsky's unit of analysis was word meaning" there is no possibility of using this concept in their own research. If a methodological insight is going to be useful, it is essential to have at least several examples of its use to generalise from. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 18/10/2017 2:00 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > > Dear all, >? > From where I stopped : >? > > --My focus was on rejection of the existence of a > contradiction between ANL?s use of singular/plural > activity/activities and arguing that CAPITAL is not to be > torn up into pieces/parts. Talking of moments and wholes > does not necessarily mean involving units of analysis. >? >? > -- No, Alfredo. A unit of capital is a firm (or company). >? > > Am I confused? Or can I justify myself in attributing a > rush for a rapid answer which might be incorrect? A whole > investment in what is to be proved otherwise just on the > next post? I mean Alfredo?s ?a commodity as the unit of > analysis of the Capital". This time we should take a firm > with specific connotation inovatively coined as ?a > commodity?. >? > Is not this to justify our previous notes? In such cases > we say ?A hen has just one leg?. At one time , Modern > State is based on the Whole idea in contrast to old > Medieval State. At another time , Aggregates are supreme. > Has anybody seen Leontiev taking Firms Proper as > Activities proper? >? > > In the USSR , there were NOT firms , only the State. Andy > does not say here if his State is whole or aggregate. But > just one can guess he takes it as a Whole. For our > discussion no problem if he takes it as an aggregate > taking into account that a whole needs moments an > aggregate parts. But what is he referring to when he says > Leontiev takes micro and Molar in one complex? > Inferencially he might have taken a firm as micro in > contrast to Molar the more so that he has already issued a > firm as an activity But But dear Andy if I?m not so > confused even mad , you said in the USSR there were no > firms no individual activities for that matter ?? What > micros then are you referring to that Leontiev too has > drawn it into his discussion? Would it not be better for > you to argue that poor L was in total loss of finding the > other leg of our Hen?? >? > > --Andy?If you are so kind to take this as a moderate > critique , I then dare repeat if you are an orthodox > Marxist (also my mentor on that) why you in a brief span > of time let yourself jump up from a thousand times ?I?m an > activity theorist? to a point of suppressing it as sort of > a null/void? ?Now that the science of Linguistics has > progressed so far , talk of activity has gone into waste > of time?. ?not the proper quote but at least near to it. > This was just short of a multitude. > > > I wonder if this one suffices you to be an orthodox > Marxist for your addressee to be a counter one . > Incidentally I wanted to tell you there are much evidence > that you are a Marxist why then you bring up those words > against Marx? Many years back I asked you : Are you then > Hegelian? You said , No! I mean at the time also there was > overtone and exaggeration on Hegel. >? > > --Damn! Commodity exchange is the unit of burgeons > society... I have to study more! Thanks Andy >? > "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist > mode of production prevails, presents itself as ?an > immense accumulation of commodities,?[1] *its unit being a > single commodity*. Our investigation must therefore begin > with the analysis of a commodity" >? >? > This must have been taken from Marx. And please Alfredo , > give us the footnote for [1] >? >? > Is not this ?immense accumulation of commodities? the very > Capital? If positive , then the unit not a ?firm? but a > commodity. > > > Because a commodity (not any goods or product for > subsistence or barter) as to the nature of its definition > has the antinomy within itself and again to its very > nature is forced to be exchanged and if my memory helps , > Marx even after entering the discussion of the exchange > phenomenon , returns the discussion back to the existence > of potentially both relative and equivalent to one single > commodity. >? > >? > --Yes , yes . What yes :-) ? There's the 'Unit of analysis > is a commodity'. ? to its roots , to its source , *to its > unit* ?? ?but capital ? with capital? >? > ? just to preserve this for later discussions : ...in > speech arising in collaborative activity. >? > > > Your point in the first paragraph is what I was trying to > convey to Haidy, to see if there is room there for common > ground between your positions. ? >? >? > > --Yes , and this was my answer : First my point in the > last paragraph was not which one is the unit of analysis. > But that why is it we cannot use such sentences or phrases > altogether. For that matter, I concluded that wholes as to > their nature are not susceptible to get torn up. They are > contiguous phenomena. >? > And I should add that I really do not find myself in a > position to receive such kind favours. Thank you! The > problem is either I have not read enough to understand > which I accept generally or that authorities see > themselves too legitimate to think of their occasional > drawbacks and then not to see the dwarfs smaller than they > deserve to be.? >? >? > Capitals are units of capital. The only whole is the world > market, within which units of capital grow and shrink, > consume one another and so on. A capital (i.e. a firm) is > not a "whole" in the true sense of the word, and I would > have an issue with anyone who wants to treat a firm as a > "system of activity" if there were any implication that this > means a "closed system." >? >? > --I just want to ask Alfredo if he quoted Marx and if as > he or any other folk understood it , the unit of > > analysis is a commodity. Presently no judgment. >? > > > --Sasha arrives! He confirms the unit of analysis to be a > substantial commodity. >? > We should have more of him. Let?s wait. >? >? > > I read Marx saying the same when writing this in the > German Ideology: >? > > "The production of ideas, of conceptions, of > consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the > material activity and the material intercourse of men-the > language of real life." >? > > ?And then again, >? > > "Language is as old as consciousness, language > is practical, real consciousness that exists for other men > as well, and only therefore does it also exist for me; > language, like consciousness, only arises from the need, > the necessity, of intercourse with other men." >? > > I do not see here some hierarchy of primaries and > secondaries, but rather immanence, humanity as a > productive force that has practical and communicative > aspects. But I am happy to be in the process of being > corrected about this. >? > > > --I wouldn?t think Sasha consciously mixes up exchanges of > goods with exchanges of commodities Alfredo. And as you > note , > > it depends on what social relation of what socio-economic > formation we base our argument .? >? > > > ?an orderliness that is self-generating and irreducible to > any of the communicating 'parties' ?irrespective of > whether these parties are engaged in any human material > productive activity or not or if their communication could > have any relationship to that process generally if not > locally or temporally--or their messages. >? > > > Don?t you think it sounds a bit dualistic? I addsomething > to your sentence please see if you again could confirm it. >? > > I remember the travel by plane all intermittent talk , > etc. Those talks were all mixed up with actions processes > affecting each other as Andy says. One could think of > partial independence of consciousness but not ultimate > segregation and separation. This was reserved for this > moment : Andy : ? just to preserve this for later > discussions : ...in speech arising in collaborative activity. > > But you also remarked : activity constituted in > communication. I talked about it. And about historical > essential precedence. But now generally intertwined. >? > > > I read Marx saying the same when writing this in the > German Ideology: >? > "The production of ideas, of conceptions, of > consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the > material activity and the material intercourse of men-the > language of real life." >? > > Is the language of real life here equal to the very > self-generating independent communication you mentioned? > > ?And then again, >? > "Language is as old as consciousness, language > is practical, real consciousness that exists for other men > as well, and only therefore does it also exist for me; > language, like consciousness, only arises from the need, > the necessity, of intercourse with other men." >? > I do not see here some hierarchy of primaries and > secondaries, but rather immanence, humanity as a > productive force that has practical and communicative > aspects. But I am happy to be in the process of being > corrected about this. >? > > > This is also a follow-up from the above. What about 'at > first'? Humanity thinks and speaks but further than the > Commune humans as relating to their relevant classes > either toil or exploit or double-deal staggering between > the two. >? > > --To our time zone , I began in the morning and now is > night. Andy?s last message needs a fresher mind. > > Now good night! >? > I hope this reaches you non-crumbled non-clattered. I > won't be able to view it. > > Best >? > Haydi >? >? > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Andy Blunden > *To:* Alfredo Jornet Gil ; "eXtended > Mind, Culture, Activity" ; Mike > Cole ; ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? > ; Ivan Uemlianin > ; Martin John Packer > ; Alexander Surmava > > *Sent:* Tuesday, 17 October 2017, 1:46:24 > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity and communication > > The idea of producing for exchange being something > essential outside of a world in which products are > exchanged is to my mind something as curious as something > being a hammer outside of a world in which there are > nails. In preparing the conceptual foundation of > /Capital/, Marx wrote the /Grundrisse /and in the > Introduction he makes clear that production, distribution, > exchange and consumption form a unity, a whole, and have > to be analysed as such: > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc2 > >? ? "Thus production, distribution, exchange and >? ? consumption form a regular syllogism; production is >? ? the generality, distribution and exchange the >? ? particularity, and consumption the singularity in >? ? which the whole is joined together." > > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 17/10/2017 8:49 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > So, not commodity exchange, but commodity production, > Sasha. That is of course in line with everything else you > can read in Marx, including the introductory paragraphs of > the German Ideology, and sounds right. Although I did not > think that 'exchange of goods' was synonymous > with 'exchange of commodities,' It is a whole different > thing, and what you are saying is that these are different > because of the type of relations of production. Sounds > right to me. > > There are theories that take communication to be an > exchange of words, or of signs, or of ideas as you write, > a 'negotiation of meanings' others say. But there are > alternatives to that too, some of which characterise the > communicative relation as a productive force, an > orderliness that is self-generating and irreducible to any > of the communicating 'parties' or their messages. Led by > W-M Roth, we have written about this. Taking that > perspective, and this may be because I am 'only' > a student, and one much less qualified than the one you > speak about in your message, it becomes very difficult for > me to have communication to be somehow secondary. As it's > been suggested here. I feel more comfortable thinking of > 'productive activity' or object oriented activity, as > manifesting both as practical activity and > as communicative activity; but not first the one and only > later the other. > > I read Marx saying the same when writing this in the > German Ideology: > > "The production of ideas, of conceptions, of > consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the > material activity and the material intercourse of men-the > language of real life." > > ?And then again, > > "Language is as old as consciousness, language > is practical, real consciousness that exists for other men > as well, and only therefore does it also exist for me; > language, like consciousness, only arises from the need, > the necessity, of intercourse with other men." > > I do not see here some hierarchy of primaries and > secondaries, but rather immanence, humanity as a > productive force that has practical and communicative > aspects. But I am happyto be in the process of being > corrected about this. > > Alfredo > > PS: The text by Ilyenkov that Sasha refers to is available > at Marxists.org, here: >? https://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/abstract/index.htm > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Alexander Surmava > > *Sent:* 16 October 2017 17:00 > *To:* ablunden@mira.net ; > eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Alfredo Jornet Gil; Mike > Cole; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Ivan Uemlianin; Martin John Packer > *Subject:* ???: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity and communication >? > Dear colleagues, > > Excuse me for the delay in responding to your previous > posts about Leontiev and Vygotsky. The problems that we > are discussing are so serious that it takes a long time to > think about them and formulate an answer. Especially in > English :-). > > Therefore, the main answer I hope to put on the XMCA no > earlier than tomorrow. > > But suddenly the discussion turned into an extremely > interesting side. I mean analysis of the logic of "Das > Kapital". It is discussed what can and should be properly > considered the unit of analysis of both Capital and ?Das > Kapital?, the world system of capitalism and its > reflection in Marx? theoretic masterpiece. At least two > hypotheses have been voiced. The first is that such a unit > is a separate " business", a capitalist firm. And the > second, that the unit of analysis is the exchange of goods. > > I think that I can hardly agree with both hypotheses. > It seems to me that for Marx the first, most abstract > stage of analysis is in no case the exchange of goods, but > the commodity itself. And not an abstract commodity, but a > commodity produced under capitalistic relations. > Therefore, the unit of analysis is strictly speaking the > very production of such a commodity. > > The exchange of goods occurs not only under capitalism, > but also under slavery, and under feudalism. This is not > an independent, not substantial concept. The exchange > depends on the mode of production, and not vice versa. > > The same can be applied to "communication" in psychology, > to the "exchange" of ideas, caresses or beatings. This > communication does not occur due to certain immanent laws > of interpersonal communication, but entirely depends on > the collaborative object-oriented activity (predmetnoy > deyatelnosty), collective labor of historically determined > individuals. In turn, the nature of their collective work, > depends not on the distribution of genes in their genomes, > but on the distribution of the means of production, on the > distribution of labor instruments. Let us emphasize, not > on the distribution of verbal signs, not on ideology, but > on the distribution of the most material weapons of human > activity. > > With communist greetings :-) , > Sasha > > P.S. By the way, I enthusiastically welcome the fact that > our discussion has switched from discussing Vygotsky's > "units" to discussing the most abstract category of "Das > Kapital" of Marx, that is, from a pale copy, to the > original. By the way, in the future it might be > interesting to re-read the "Dialectics of the abstract and > concrete in scientific and theoretical thinking" by EV > Ilyenkov. This work contains an elaborate analysis of the > method of Marx, in comparison with which Vygotsky's > methodological reflexion seems to be something quite > student-like. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *??:* Andy Blunden > > *????:* Alfredo Jornet Gil > ; "xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu" > > > *??????????:* ???????????, 16 ??????? 2017 15:51 > *????:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and > communication > > Capitals are units of capital. The only whole is the world > market, within which units of capital grow and shrink, > consume one another and so on. A capital (i.e. a firm) is > not a "whole" in the true sense of the word, and I would > have an issue with anyone who wants to treat a firm as a > "system of activity" if there were any implication that this > means a "closed system." > > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 16/10/2017 11:42 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > > > Your point in the first paragraph is what I was trying to > > convey to Haidy, to see if there is room there for common > > ground between your positions. ? > > > > Alfredo > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Andy Blunden > > > *Sent:* 16 October 2017 14:39 > > *To:* Alfredo Jornet Gil; > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > > activity and communication > > > > > > Yes, yes, Alfredo! But what is often overlooked is that > > the aim of Marx's research is not commodity exchange (in > > itself a harmless business) but capital. But he does not > > *start* with capital, but goes down to its roots, its > > source, in the circulation of commodities. > > > > Compare with Vygotsky's analysis of the intellect > > (thinking). Word meanings are *not* the subject matter of > > Vygotsky's research (who gives a damn!?), but concepts! > > But he does not start with concepts, but goes down to its > > roots, its source, in speech arising in collaborative > > activity. Actually, AN Leontyev missed this, as can be > > seen in his trenchant attack on Vygotsky in his ?Study of > > the Environment in the Pedological Works of L. S. Vygotsky". > > > > Andy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 16/10/2017 11:31 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > >> Damn! Commodity exchange is the unit of burgeons > society... I have to study more! Thanks Andy > >> > >> "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist > mode of production prevails, presents itself as ?an > immense accumulation of commodities,?[1] its unit being a > single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin > with the analysis of a commodity" > >> > >> Alfredo > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > on behalf of > Andy Blunden > > >> Sent: 16 October 2017 14:22 > >> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity > and communication > >> > >> Just to illustrate that I am being an orthodox Marxist > here, > >> from Chapter 10, Vol. 3 of Capital: > >> > >>? ? "In the case of capitals of average, or approximately > >>? ? average, composition, the price of production is thus > >>? ? the same or almost the same as the value, and the profit > >>? ? the same as the surplus-value produced by them. All > >>? ? other capitals, of whatever composition, tend toward > >>? ? this average under pressure of competition. But since > >>? ? the capitals of average composition are of the same, or > >>? ? approximately the same, structure as the average social > >>? ? capital, all capitals have the tendency, regardless of > >>? ? the surplus-value produced by them, to realize the > >>? ? average profit, rather than their own surplus-value in > >>? ? the price of their commodity, i.e., to realize the > >>? ? prices of production." > >> > >> Andy > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> Andy Blunden > >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > >> On 16/10/2017 11:18 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > >>> No, Alfredo. A unit of capital is a firm (or company). > It is > >>> impossible to explain the formation of a rate of > profit (at > >>> least as Marx does in /Capital/) without the conception of > >>> units of capital, namely, firms and the competition > between > >>> them. Firms are of course, what Engestrom would call a > >>> "system of activity" or I would call a "project" and > >>> Leontyev almost could call an activity. But in the USSR > >>> there were no firms, only the state. It is perhaps A N > >>> Leonytev's greatest discovery? that there are both > micro and > >>> molar units in any complex process. True in Psychology and > >>> true in political economy. Whereas exchange of commodities > >>> is an artefact-mediated action, a firm is an activity, a > >>> specific aggregate of actions, directed towards the > >>> quantitative maximisation of the value of the unit of > capital. > >>> > >>> English is not a perfect language either. : ) The word > >>> "consciousness" has the unfortunate connotation of being a > >>> mass noun (or continuous substance) whereas it is know > only, > >>> of course, in individual "consciousnesses" or "minds." But > >>> it sounds so clumsy to say "a consciousness." > >>> > >>> Andy > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> Andy Blunden > >>> > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > >>> On 16/10/2017 11:07 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > >>>> Haydi, > >>>> > >>>> I think Andy does not mean 'one capital' versus > 'several capitals', for, if I read Andy adequately, > Capital is for him not a unit but rather the whole of > which commodity exchange is the unit. Thus, the germ cell > of Capital is thus not Capital, or 'a' Capital, which you > seem to attribute to Andy; just as I don't think he is > arguing that there is consciousness, and then many > consciousnesses. So it may be that you two agree more than > disagree, judging by your last paragraph. > >>>> > >>>> Whether his position on singular and plurals is more > or less adequate than another positions, that I leave it > up to the discussion. > >>>> > >>>> Alfredo > >>>> ________________________________________ > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > on behalf of > ?Haydi Zulfei? ?? > > >>>> Sent: 16 October 2017 09:45 > >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Andy Blunden > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity and communication > >>>> > >>>> Thank you David for your explanation! Though for me > it needs more than one read. > >>>> > >>>> The point was whether use of activity and activities > in Leontiev is a contradiction. Whoever L was and whatever > he believed in , he was not so negligent to the point of > posing activity first and immediately after that > recounting 'activities'. Translation ruled out a committed > error. Then such a blundering display must have a > justification rather than a misunderstanding in comprehension. > >>>> > >>>> In one sense all things are related. The more so with > the Monistic View. We have so many corporate and > incorporate things , two of them so problematic > communication and practical activity since Descartes and > we are determined to avoid Dualism and refer and return > all phenomena to that same thing , the one substance. In > the actuality of the world , there's nothing discrete , > that is , absolutely unrelated. Is that pretext for us not > to see this unbounded versatility and hues and dues as > distinct coloring? Maybe one of the ways was for man to > let Nature go unrestrained?? But man also did not come of > its own will. > >>>> > >>>> The sole way destined or open to Man was of its > Nature to engage with the surrounding. To deal with it > sensually and subjectively/agently. Then Man in one time > interpreted all phenomena as they appeared to him. But he > grew up further than his infantile period. He learnt to > delve into matters , go deeper and deeper. With one > spectacle (plane) he observed how that single substance > let its attributes multiply themselves into different > shapes and colors and Modes. With another plane of the one > spectacle observed the variation of the Modes themselves. > I mean Ontology and Epistemology not yet separate from > each other as I used a pair of planes for that matter. > >>>> > >>>> Then we usually don't use a nail-clipper for > alterations and manipulations in Genes. Or devices for > Genes for our feeding and nutrition. It is then within > these constraints that corporate and incorporate phenomena > differ. Singles and plurals differ. Discrete and the > indivisible differ. Parts and Moments differ. Wholes and > mere entities differ. A process and a product resulting > from that process differ. No justification to interchange > them because of the use of A in front of them. > >>>> > >>>> I wonder if this is true for others too. For me it's > difficult to accept to say "this capital that capital" > "those 8 capitals united" "capitals of the world dissolved > into unanimity". If I'm correct in this , it's , I think , > because Capital is a Whole , coming out of a long process > of functions and disfunctions , moments of circulations > and transient stagnation , booms and boosts and drawbacks > and failures. The moment of its conception in the exchange > of commodities up to the discovery of the private > appropriation of the surplus value to the point of > harnessing every means to penetrate each tight corner of > the big World. > >>>> > >>>> Best > >>>> Haydi > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>? ? ? From: David Kellogg > > >>>>? To: Andy Blunden >; "eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity" > > >>>>? Sent: Monday, 16 October 2017, 2:21:12 > >>>>? Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity and communication > >>>> > >>>> Of course, neither an object nor a process is > discrete (or even, as Andy > >>>> says, "discreet"). Who can tell me where a mountain > river ends and the > >>>> alluvial plain begins? Certainly not Cezanne or the > phenomenologists who so > >>>> loved him. Yet a mountain is most assuredly an > object, just as surely > >>>> as climbing the mountain to ascertain its degree of > montagnitude is a > >>>> process. > >>>> > >>>> This last week I've been struggling through the > "Curriculum Reforms" > >>>> wrought by three right wing governments in Norway, > Finland, and New > >>>> Zealand. Like Catalonia, these are all countries > where unpopular coalitions > >>>> of right parties are replacing a much more popular > but obviously > >>>> unsuccessful social democratic coalition of left > parties. In Norway and in > >>>> Finland, the coalition actually includes the far > right, neo-fascist, > >>>> anti-immigrant parties, and in New Zealand it > includes the ACT, that is, an > >>>> "association of consumers and taxpayers" whose main > interest is cutting > >>>> education budgets, starting by making teachers and > students fight each > >>>> other for scarce resources in the form of "block grants". > >>>> > >>>> Now, all of these governments are more or less bound > by something called > >>>> DeSeCo, which is short for Describe and Select > Competences. This is because > >>>> right-wing ideology sees education not as a public > good but as a commodity, > >>>> to be judged by tangible results and priced > accordingly. This presents a > >>>> real theoretical problem for right-wingers, because > they ALSO see that > >>>> "flexible labor markets" and "entrepreneurial spirit" > means that there > >>>> isn't any way of deciding on what skills or even what > knowledge the > >>>> "economy of the future" will demand. > >>>> > >>>> We can see this in the emphasis on "competence". > Competence is not a thing > >>>> or a process, and it is neither discrete nor > discreet. Of course, if you > >>>> are a linguist, competence is something Chomsky > thought of in the sixties, > >>>> an abstract form of knowledge in a hypothetical > native speaker-hearer in an > >>>> imaginary homogenous speech community. It is > "discrete" in the sense of > >>>> being nowhere and nowhen connectible to performance > in any way. It is > >>>> therefore "discreet" in the sense of being > untestable--as soon as you test > >>>> it, you have a form of performance, not competence. > It's like standing in > >>>> front of a classroom with a picture of a guy swimming > and trying to teach > >>>> the expression "i can swim". What you have in the > picture is not "I can > >>>> swim"; it's manifestly "he is swimming". > >>>> > >>>> But in DeSeCo, you get these lists of competences, > which are set up as if > >>>> they were discrete so you can list them on a > Powerpoint slide and sell them > >>>> to ministries of education. And the real selling > point is that, on the one > >>>> hand, because they are all "meta-skills" and > "meta-knowledges", they don't > >>>> have any practical outcome or real commitment to a > job and a livelihood. > >>>> And on the other, they sound terribly powerful when > you phrase them as > >>>> "learning to learn" or "transversal competence" or > "meta-cognitive skills" > >>>> or something like that. Jobs, in other words, are > discretionary. After > >>>> centuries of promising jobs and livelhood in return > for school and boredom, > >>>> the Western economies have decided that sticks are > cheaper than carrots, > >>>> and the thing to do is simply to rule people who > don't have educational > >>>> certificates out of the job market rather than try to > provide > >>>> actual know-how and factual know-that. > >>>> > >>>> Here are my four favorites (i.e. the four that we > stress in our own > >>>> curricular reform here in South Korea): > >>>> > >>>> interpersonal competence (sociability, the ability to > 'be alone with > >>>> others' as Hughlings Jackson put it) > >>>> cultural competence (enculturation, the ability to > understand traditions, > >>>> mores, and norms) > >>>> creative competence (intelligence, innovation, yadda > yadda) > >>>> individual competence (the ability to dress yourself, > feed yourself, and > >>>> show up for an interview where you will not be > offered a job) > >>>> > >>>> Vygotsky, as usual, has a better idea--it's a > mountain. We just turn the > >>>> DeSeCO PPT upside down. Then we add each > competence---freedom, creative > >>>> intelligence, encultured habits and tastes, and > instiinctive > >>>> sociability--as a superstructure? erected on the > basis of the previous one: > >>>> > >>>> free will (the ability to make choices that are not > necessarily intelligent > >>>> or habitual or instinctive) > >>>> intelligence (the ability to make choices that are > not habitual or > >>>> instinctive but nevertheless adaptive) > >>>> enculturation (the ability to make choices that are > not instinctive but > >>>> conform to the choices that have proven successful in > the now socialized > >>>> environment) > >>>> instinct (the ability to make choices that are > responsive to the > >>>> environment and which conform to the choices that > have proven successful in > >>>> phylogenesis) > >>>> > >>>> Are theses objects? Of course, if we say so. And > processes? Well, how else > >>>> could they have come about? What they are not, > however, is either > >>>> "discrete" or "discreet": they are clearly linked to > each other, and they > >>>> are all linked, through the lower layer, to > adaptations ot the environment. > >>>> > >>>> And there's the rub--where the rubber meets the road. > The real question, > >>>> for our teachers and for our children, is about what > will happen to them > >>>> now that these competences can no longer be redeemed > in jobs. Will the > >>>> anti-Faustian bargain of exchanging your youth for a > >>>> stable middle-aged livelihood survive? > >>>> > >>>> David Kellogg > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Haydi, you say "AN activity is not a thing ; it's a > >>>>> process." I wonder then what is a thing which is not > also a > >>>>> process? (I interpret "thing" as meaning "something > >>>>> discrete," otherwise your objection makes no sense.) The > >>>>> point is that Hegel does not make this dichotomy - every > >>>>> thing is also a process and vice versa. That a > process is > >>>>> also discreet is important because it is only thanks > to its > >>>>> discreteness that we can cognise the process and in fact > >>>>> only thanks to its discreteness that a process can > affect > >>>>> anything else. To speak of processes which are not also > >>>>> discrete is to speak in abstractions. > >>>>> > >>>>> On this point, when Hegel puts ideas above matter, > it has to > >>>>> be realised that for Hegel "ideas" are social > practices - he > >>>>> is simply place human practice at the centre of > human life > >>>>> and its comprehension, rather than the mechanical and > >>>>> chemical processes of Nature. If you think that > "ideas" are > >>>>> simply chimera inside our heads, then, of course, > Hegel's > >>>>> idealism seems like madness. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, all the Marxists have blasted Hegel. As they must. > >>>>> Otherwise they must end up advocates of Constitutional > >>>>> Monarchy. But while Marx uses almost every mention > he makes > >>>>> of Hegel to criticise him, often in extreme terms, > it can go > >>>>> unnoticed the extent to which in practice Marx > follows Hegel > >>>>> in philosophy. Of course Marx is not equal to Hegel, but > >>>>> simple formulae do not contribute to understanding > the relation. > >>>>> > >>>>> Andy > >>>>> > >>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> Andy Blunden > >>>>> > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > >>>>> On 15/10/2017 6:51 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > >>>>>> Andy, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Let me first apologize to David Kellog because in > others' > >>>>>> wandering and perplexity it was he who in his > reading of > >>>>>> Gramsci's prison letters came across this point and > made > >>>>>> you not only accept the inappropriateness of Hegel's > >>>>>> headstand as Crowning every worldly affair deriving > from > >>>>>> the People's Heads "Idea" , "Absolute" but also > >>>>>> intensifying this point with more examples and > references > >>>>>> from Engels' "utopian versus genuine socialism" on your > >>>>>> part. Of course you've been helping us on many > occasions > >>>>>> and? you're very welcome for this nothing to be denied. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> At this point we have no problem with translation. > >>>>>> Leontiev meant it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Suppose that ANL does not know "individual" which > is very > >>>>>> ambiguous because in what then one should seek the > >>>>>> embodiment of the "particular" and if one takes the > very > >>>>>> particular as individual , then everything gets > mixed up . > >>>>>> Then what about you who stick firmly on individual > >>>>>> discrete detached activities as an objection to Sasha's > >>>>>> sole ACTIVITY as theoretical understanding. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As you well know even AN activity is not a thing ; > it's a > >>>>>> process. And you once distinguished between GENERAL > WORK > >>>>>> ACTIVITY and LABOUR ACTIVITY or VALORIZATION ACTIVITY > >>>>>> which was quite right and timely though you > recently gave > >>>>>> differing definitions in no way harmonious to your > >>>>>> previous definitions. But the main problem is blending > >>>>>> clarity in expression with concrete in theory. No doubt > >>>>>> you're a Fan of Hegel. I should repeat myself : > Hegel is a > >>>>>> hero of theoretical concepts. In theorizing , and > for him > >>>>>> to explicate the Essence of Phenomena , he begins with > >>>>>> apparently concrete things as ABSTRACTS finally reaches > >>>>>> CONCRETE UNIVERSALS as concepts. And here we again very > >>>>>> surprisingly see you put your finger upon what you > should > >>>>>> have known in person is contrary to your own erudition. > >>>>>> Turning Hegel down as believing in discrete abstracts. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And now to his son's comment : What individual are you > >>>>>> pursuing? Your Hegel sees phenomena in their relations. > >>>>>> According to him and also according to ANL ACTIVITY > as a > >>>>>> unit of Life is Molar non-additive. He even does > not see > >>>>>> operations as single acts. It's a matter of the > angle of > >>>>>> vision not detachment and concreteness. If his son had > >>>>>> talked of concreteness in moments of activity , > then you > >>>>>> were right in your objections and oppositions. You > please > >>>>>> give us your last definition of activity here (not in > >>>>>> lengthy references) so that we can have a discerning > >>>>>> option. > >>>>>> So far to remove the problem we should accept > operations > >>>>>> are separately and independently carried out ; > actions in > >>>>>> their own are carried out ; activities are carried out > >>>>>> arbitrarily. And these are done to the realization > of man > >>>>>> as the ensemble of social relations based on some > >>>>>> infrastructure. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hegel's metaphor has been thrown back at him by Marx , > >>>>>> Engels , Lenin , Vygotsky , Ilyenko , and many > others. If > >>>>>> you like to stand above all Giants of Marxism , it's > >>>>>> something perfectly and absolutely Personal as you're > >>>>>> speaking out loud! Then why give us so many references. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Haydi > >>>>>> > >>>>>> P.S. Alfredo! Though you have my previous private > response > >>>>>> concerning the matters you pose I see myself > accountable > >>>>>> to rewrite them to the Public. Thanks! > >>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>> *From:* Andy Blunden > > >>>>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, 15 October 2017, 5:35:40 > >>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity > >>>>>> and communication > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Haydi, partly the problem with ANL's > >>>>>> philosophy-as-we-know-it is simply a product of its > >>>>>> translation into English. But partly it is also in his > >>>>>> philosophy. As Victor Kaptelinin first pointed out > (so far > >>>>>> as I know), ANL knows the universal and the > particular but > >>>>>> he does not know the individual. And his son's > comment that > >>>>>> ANL did not conceive of Activity as being discrete > proves > >>>>>> this to be the case. Thus his concept of Activity > is not a > >>>>>> fully concrete concept. And this is not a product of > >>>>>> translation. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As David Kellogg has kindly pointed out to me, it > was Hegel > >>>>>> who actually first introduced this metaphor of people > >>>>>> "walking (or standing) on their heads." Personally, > I don't > >>>>>> think it has ever helped anyone understand the > defect of > >>>>>> Hegel's philosophy to throw this metaphor back at > him. As > >>>>>> demonstrated in this issue (the concept of > activity) it was > >>>>>> Hegel who understood that a concept must have all three > >>>>>> moments - universal, particular and individual. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Andy > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>> Andy Blunden > >>>>>> > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > >>>>>> On 15/10/2017 9:24 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > >>>>>>> Dear Mike, > >>>>>>> Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an > >>>>>> activist for his concreteness and clarifications is > >>>>>> crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot > >>>>>> ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes , > Parts , > >>>>>> and Moments. He personally provided us with > examples from > >>>>>> Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they > convert > >>>>>> Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced > with the > >>>>>> same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most > >>>>>> valuable contribution) does not begin with the > individual > >>>>>> case in isolation which phenomenologically > speaking (in > >>>>>> contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for > >>>>>> appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not > obtained > >>>>>> because one instance is considered detached from all > >>>>>> relations and its subservience to the service of the > >>>>>> Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is > particular in > >>>>>> some feature/s. And these particulars are > essential. With > >>>>>> other particulars in other individuals they are related > >>>>>> actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense , > this whole > >>>>>> could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life > itself. > >>>>>> Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is , > >>>>>> with category and concept only therefore , > following Marx > >>>>>> and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again > on his > >>>>>> feet (not that the firmament to that time did put > "idea" > >>>>>> on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on > their > >>>>>> heads but to put them again headstand thinking and > acting > >>>>>> with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just > >>>>>> with their brains. Then taking all options in > translation > >>>>>> even that of a Machine into consideration it does > not seem > >>>>>> to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of > >>>>>> Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of > >>>>>> activities thereafter. These activities are those > arising > >>>>>> from the properties of versatile objects in turn > arising > >>>>>> from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile > >>>>>> needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think > >>>>>> Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual > >>>>>> activities as moments with the broadest idea of the > >>>>>> Monistic Substantial Modes or States in Philosophical > >>>>>> terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn > integrate and > >>>>>> are dissolved into Monism of Substance. > >>>>>>> Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche > >>>>>> (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one > >>>>>> Substance) is already there with the organism > actively and > >>>>>> spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own , > >>>>>> positioning its due object and moving along its > contours > >>>>>> and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to > itself > >>>>>> , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and > >>>>>> bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as > >>>>>> novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with > >>>>>> Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with > a huge > >>>>>> gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of > >>>>>> consciousness , now apparently ascending to > "wording" and > >>>>>> "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration) > further > >>>>>> "communication" as something indispensable and > necessary > >>>>>> and inevitable to the realization of life affairs. > >>>>>>> Best > >>>>>>> Haydi > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>? ? ? From: mike cole > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>? To: Andy Blunden > >>>>>> >>; "eXtended Mind, Culture, > >>>>>> Activity" > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> Cc: Alexander Surmava > >>>>>> >>; ivan-dgf > >>>>>> > >>; Ivan > >>>>>> Uemlianin >>; > >>>>>> Haydi Zulfei > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>? Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50 > >>>>>>>? Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > >>>>>> activity and communication > >>>>>>> Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.Could someone post > >>>>>> the Russian text next to the English so that it is > >>>>>> possible to compare it with the translation? I spent > >>>>>> several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of > >>>>>> Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally > defeated > >>>>>> me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra > rubles in > >>>>>> my pocket. > >>>>>>> Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can > warrant us > >>>>>> a "true" translation. > >>>>>>> mike > >>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden > >>>>>> > >> wrote: > >>>>>>> The Progress Publishers English translation of > "Activity and > >>>>>>> Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of > >>>>>>> Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>? ? Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, > >>>>>>>? ? material life of the material subject. In the > narrower > >>>>>>>? ? sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is > a unit of > >>>>>>>? ? life, mediated by mental reflection, by > >>>>>>>? ? an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the > >>>>>>>? ? subject in the objective world. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The > >>>>>>> Development of Mind" we have: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thus, the principal ?unit? of a vital process is an > >>>>>>> organism?s activity; the different activities that > realise > >>>>>>> its diverse vital relations with the surrounding > reality are > >>>>>>> essentially determined by their object; we shall > therefore > >>>>>>> differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively > >>>>>>> different] types of activity according to the > difference in > >>>>>>> their objects. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses > >>>>>>> "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The > effect has > >>>>>>> been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for > >>>>>>> English-speakers. It has generally been taken to > mean simply > >>>>>>> "category." The second does the same, but in > addition makes > >>>>>>> it evident that the plural does not refer to different > >>>>>>> activities, but to *types* of activity. This > blocks the > >>>>>>> possibility of forming a true concept of activity > >>>>>> altogether. > >>>>>>> With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your > claim is > >>>>>>> simply that "such an initial *category* can only be > >>>>>>> object-oriented activity" I have no objection, > supposing > >>>>>>> that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method > of units, > >>>>>>> even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Andy > >>>>>>> ------------------------------ > >>>>>> ------------------------------ > >>>>>>> Andy Blunden > >>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics > . > >>>>>> org/ablunden/index.htm > >>>>>>> On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote: > >>>>>>>> Dear Andy! > >>>>>>>> I am glad that our communication was resumed > after many > >>>>>>>> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters > and files > >>>>>>>> and found that the problem of "object oriented > activity OR > >>>>>>>> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 > before > >>>>>>>> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is > serious and > >>>>>>>> it deserves to return to it today. > >>>>>>>> Last year I was close to being silent forever. > >>>>>>>> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy > postponed > >>>>>>>> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I > had the > >>>>>>>> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my > >>>>>>>> theoretical studies without entrusting this > matter to my > >>>>>>>> descendants :-). > >>>>>>>> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not > >>>>>>>> understand your question. What means the distinction > >>>>>>>> between singular and plural number in your > remark? Could > >>>>>>>> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the > >>>>>>>> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my > >>>>>>>> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not > coincide, > >>>>>>>> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the > theory of > >>>>>>>> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my > dissertation > >>>>>>>> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's > "Theory of > >>>>>>>> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore, > >>>>>>>> having understood the theoretic meaning of your > claims to > >>>>>>>> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily > >>>>>>>> understand the essence of your objections to me. > >>>>>>>> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev > and I > >>>>>>>> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and > not as a > >>>>>>>> particular empirical case of its manifestation. > Therefore, > >>>>>>>> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. > Just like > >>>>>>>> Matter, Nature, or Substance. > >>>>>>>> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we > come across > >>>>>>>> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its > >>>>>>>> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the > >>>>>>>> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old > >>>>>>>> philosophers and that only the numerous > individual "atomic > >>>>>>>> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number > really > >>>>>>>> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar > >>>>>>>> positivism and empiricism. > >>>>>>>> However, all of this may not apply to your > position ... > >>>>>>>> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this > issue. > >>>>>>>> Best wishes > >>>>>>>> Sasha > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ???????????, 8 ??????? 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden > >>>>>>>> > >> > ?????(?): > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I'll ask Sasha a question. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial > >>>>>>>> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it > >>>>>> stands, > >>>>>>>> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be > >>>>>> that you > >>>>>>>> are translating it from a Russian statement that is > >>>>>> correct. > >>>>>>>> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as > in when I > >>>>>>>> say "every activity has an object."? But in your > expression > >>>>>>>> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and > >>>>>> unless > >>>>>>>> you are a religious person is not something which can > >>>>>> have a > >>>>>>>> specific object. All English translations of A N > Leontyev > >>>>>>>> make this mistake which has caused no end of > confusion > >>>>>> among > >>>>>>>> English-speakers. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Am I right? You meant "activities" not > "activity," just as > >>>>>>>> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water." > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Andy > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ------------------------------ > >>>>>> ------------------------------ > >>>>>>>> Andy Blunden > >>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics > . > >>>>>> org/ablunden/index.htm > >>>>>>>> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Dear Sasha, all, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding > >>>>>>>> response. I think you are right in your assertion > that we > >>>>>>>> are discussing some of the most fundamental > problems of > >>>>>>>> CHAT, ?and therefore it may be worth the try. > However, one > >>>>>>>> can see in the lack of response by other > members?? that > >>>>>>>> not everyone has the privilege of the time it > requires to > >>>>>>>> go through all of it. In any case, I continue > believing > >>>>>>>> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to > produce and I > >>>>>>>> hope it is/will be appreciated as such. > >>>>>>>>> If I may summarise ??the core of your argument, > I quote > >>>>>>>> from your response: > >>>>>>>>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial > category, > >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, > then for us > >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We > will > >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which > one can > >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including > >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious > that > >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented > >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication > from the > >>>>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. > But from > >>>>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and > other such > >>>>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or > >>>>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence" > >>>>>>>>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework > >>>>>>>> according to which we are looking of the most > original > >>>>>>>> germ cell, the one from which all others can be > >>>>>>>> developed??, then object-oriented activity is > primary. I > >>>>>>>> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to > agree on > >>>>>> that. > >>>>>>>>> But ??once we are back to the development of a > concrete > >>>>>>>> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact > that, for > >>>>>>>> any child to participate in human forms of > object-oriented > >>>>>>>> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented > >>>>>>>> activity that also characterise any other > multi-cellular > >>>>>>>> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise > into those > >>>>>>>> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any > category > >>>>>>>> devised to account for human psyche needs to > agree with > >>>>>>>> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you > describe, is > >>>>>>>> this germ cell initial to human concrete > psychology, or is > >>>>>>>> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one? > >>>>>>>>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others > answer > >>>>>>>> (which I hope some do). > >>>>>>>>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question > a try: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be > primary in > >>>>>>>> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of > teaching > >>>>>>>> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies > show, this > >>>>>>>> is only possible through *involvement* in collective > >>>>>>>> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is > primary > >>>>>>>> over, for example, the teaching of a language > (which is > >>>>>>>> only possible in and through object-oriented > activity). > >>>>>>>> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional > aspect of > >>>>>>>> the relation between adult and child, inherently > tied to > >>>>>>>> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this > >>>>>>>> object-oriented activity already ?characterised > by all > >>>>>>>> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually > >>>>>>>> uplifting' in the very moment in which we > describe such > >>>>>>>> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do > you get > >>>>>>>> collective activity without them? On this, and > precisely > >>>>>>>> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence > of Man", > >>>>>>>> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident > in that > >>>>>>>> case that communication is included in activity > and is its > >>>>>>>> essential component: without relation to another > >>>>>>>> person(s), activity is impossible'? (144). > Although I not > >>>>>>>> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, > here I can't > >>>>>>>> see how he can be wrong. > >>>>>>>>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of > >>>>>>>> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the > >>>>>>>> category of object-oriented activity, is most > primary. Let > >>>>>>>> me also note that ?there are other authors who have > >>>>>>>> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity > that you > >>>>>>>> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on > >>>>>>>> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom > >>>>>>>> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of > auto-affection' ( > >>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/ Incarnation-Philosophy- > >>>>>> Studies-Phenomenology- Existential/dp/0810131269 > >>>>>>>> ) > >>>>>>>>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology, > I wonder > >>>>>>>> whether ?we should be forced to choose between > activity > >>>>>>>> and communication. Is not the distinction just an > artefact > >>>>>>>> of a partial understanding of what it means > activity and > >>>>>>>> what it means communicating. I still feel that > >>>>>>>> communication, in the sense of addressivity that > Mikhailov > >>>>>>>> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, > or for > >>>>>>>> semiotics. If the question is whether practical > activity > >>>>>>>> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. > You don't > >>>>>>>> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my > perhaps > >>>>>>>> naive view, we ought to have a notion of > communication > >>>>>>>> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' > (as in > >>>>>>>> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), > for I > >>>>>>>> don't see how any practical activity can have any > sense > >>>>>>>> (and so be achieved) for any human outside > addressivity. > >>>>>>>> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity > we are > >>>>>>>> talking about; one machines could perform on > their own > >>>>>>>> without consciousness. ? > >>>>>>>>> Best wishes, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Alfredo > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ______________________________ __ > >>>>>>>>> From: Alexander Surmava > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54 > >>>>>>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> .> edu>; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo > >>>>>>>> Jornet Gil; ?Haydi Zulfei? ??; Mike Cole > >>>>>>>>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > >>>>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more > interesting, > >>>>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But > before > >>>>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? > (replica > >>>>>>>> aside) :-) > >>>>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if > it is > >>>>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical > approach, > >>>>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its > framework > >>>>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a > >>>>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually > considered the > >>>>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. > >>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our > discussions > >>>>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the > >>>>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. > >>>>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the > principle > >>>>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism > compatible > >>>>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that > is, it is > >>>>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and > >>>>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. > Or maybe > >>>>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to > add to > >>>>>>>> these two principles something third, say - > "subjectness"? > >>>>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and > similar > >>>>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of > our inquiry > >>>>>>>> and without answering them in the most general > form, we > >>>>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. > But this > >>>>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, > >>>>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic > theoretical > >>>>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that > >>>>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological > theory, > >>>>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially > >>>>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a > consistently > >>>>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the > >>>>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical > >>>>>>>> verbiage. > >>>>>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ > >>>>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> > >>>>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical > >>>>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions > between > >>>>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. > >>>>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting > for me too > >>>>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to > education and > >>>>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from > Central > >>>>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > >>>>>>>>> Agitprop > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? sticks > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? in my teeth too, > >>>>>>>>> and I?d rather > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? compose > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? romances for you - > >>>>>>>>> more profit in it > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? and more charm. > >>>>>>>>> But I > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? subdued > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? myself, > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? setting my heel > >>>>>>>>> on the throat > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of my own song. > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Vladimir > Mayakovski > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ? ??? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????? ?????, > >>>>>>>>> ? ??? ?? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????? ?? ??? ? > >>>>>>>>> ???????? ??? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????. > >>>>>>>>> ?? ? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ???? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????, > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????????? > >>>>>>>>> ?? ????? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????? ?????. > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? ?????????? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again > forced > >>>>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to > >>>>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces > us to > >>>>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, > literally > >>>>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the > abstract > >>>>>>>> to the concrete. > >>>>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting > questions > >>>>>>>> about how to understand the principle of > interaction as > >>>>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented > >>>>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will > answer > >>>>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed > >>>>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated > by me in > >>>>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago > ORIGIN OF > >>>>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian > >>>>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? > >>>>>>>> ????????????. > >>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% > 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% > >>>>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . > >>>>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the > >>>>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is > >>>>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in > published in > >>>>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange > >>>>>>>> reason was not published then or later. > >>>>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your > questions, > >>>>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text > >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. > >>>>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would > like to > >>>>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the > interaction > >>>>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in > no case > >>>>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two > >>>>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false > approach > >>>>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism > has in my > >>>>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that > should > >>>>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is > obvious > >>>>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is > characteristic of the > >>>>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling > called the > >>>>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object > >>>>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are > not dealing > >>>>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with > the logic > >>>>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? > >>>>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the > >>>>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, > "positing" > >>>>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, > >>>>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the > chemism > >>>>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the > sense > >>>>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its > active and > >>>>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic > interaction, in > >>>>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is > active, > >>>>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, > objective. There > >>>>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, > but let us > >>>>>>>> return to this somehow later. > >>>>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my > graduation > >>>>>>>> work of 1988: > >>>>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) > relation > >>>>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction > of two > >>>>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the > sun taken > >>>>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is > >>>>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It > >>>>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively > due to > >>>>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) > >>>>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? > >>>>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the > plant > >>>>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). > >>>>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet > relation > >>>>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, > spontaneously > >>>>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital > >>>>>> activity. > >>>>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive > relation, > >>>>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not > >>>>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being > stimulated. > >>>>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism > does not > >>>>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with > >>>>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external > influence. > >>>>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it > is not > >>>>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) > can be > >>>>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the > organism > >>>>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external > thing > >>>>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into > >>>>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it > >>>>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of > >>>>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive > >>>>>> relation.? > >>>>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and > >>>>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the > >>>>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special > Mikhailovsky's > >>>>>>>> "addressing" to another person. > >>>>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered > >>>>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have > to try to > >>>>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human > consciousness > >>>>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has > been and > >>>>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology > >>>>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and > >>>>>> Ilyenkov. > >>>>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If > we want > >>>>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the > >>>>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract > to the > >>>>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers > >>>>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of > >>>>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct > method, to > >>>>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical > >>>>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to > choose one > >>>>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at > first > >>>>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a > >>>>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of > course > >>>>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic > >>>>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that > ".?the human > >>>>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single > >>>>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the > >>>>>>>> social relations.. " > >>>>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in > Vygotsky's > >>>>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a > purely > >>>>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to > >>>>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical > psychology > >>>>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from > Marx, then > >>>>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely > >>>>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us > with > >>>>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which > of them it > >>>>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first > place, > >>>>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have > to be > >>>>>>>> solved by ourselves. > >>>>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this > >>>>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A > >>>>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose > leader was AN > >>>>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov > undoubtedly > >>>>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object > oriented > >>>>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the > first, second > >>>>>>>> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a > group of > >>>>>>>> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was > inclined to > >>>>>>>> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words, > >>>>>>>> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas > "Leningraders" > >>>>>>>> were for communication. > >>>>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our > >>>>>>>> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a > literal > >>>>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, > but our > >>>>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, > such a > >>>>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the > >>>>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered > something > >>>>>>>> rather indecent. > >>>>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of > >>>>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also > >>>>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic > victory, > >>>>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by > organizing > >>>>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was > >>>>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was > >>>>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the > post of > >>>>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the > dean of > >>>>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a > >>>>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader > >>>>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful > people in > >>>>>>>> the ideological department of the Central > Committee of > >>>>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of > scientific > >>>>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful > discussions in > >>>>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the > >>>>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed > supporters > >>>>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. > Davydov's > >>>>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology > of RAE > >>>>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. > >>>>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to > >>>>>>>> "communication" and "activity." > >>>>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial > category, > >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, > then for us > >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We > will > >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which > one can > >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including > >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious > that > >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented > >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication > from the > >>>>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. > But from > >>>>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and > other such > >>>>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or > >>>>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence. > >>>>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, > but a fact > >>>>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive > >>>>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner > reflexivity and > >>>>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is > first > >>>>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic > level, > >>>>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex > dialectic > >>>>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in > the course > >>>>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is > traced. > >>>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external > >>>>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, > >>>>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, > >>>>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a > >>>>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of > man. > >>>>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive > Activity" > >>>>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are > taken not > >>>>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of > >>>>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, > but as > >>>>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s > >>>>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. > >>>>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me > in my > >>>>>>>> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a > >>>>>>>> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the > >>>>>>>> relation of objective activity and > "communication". In the > >>>>>>>> same time, reflexive object oriented activity, > that is, > >>>>>>>> the active relation of the subject to the object > and to > >>>>>>>> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the > human, as, > >>>>>>>> indeed, any other, psychology. > >>>>>>>>> ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?????????? ????? > ??? ????, > >>>>>>>> ????? ??????? ????? ??????????????? ???????, > ?????? ???, > >>>>>>>> ??? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ??????????? > ??????????, > >>>>>>>> ??????? ????????? ? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????????? > ????? > >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS > >>>>>>>> ? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???????. > >>>>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most > suitable > >>>>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, > >>>>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the > problem of the > >>>>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large > >>>>>>>> English text > >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS > >>>>>>>> and read it to the end :-). > >>>>>>>>> ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE > AND HUMAN > >>>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? > ???????????? > >>>>>>>> ????????????. > >>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% > 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% > D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> > >>>>>>>>> ???????, ??????? ????? ?? ???????, ??????????????? > >>>>>>>> ??????????? ???????? > >>>>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ > >>>>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% > >>>>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% > >>>>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% > >>>>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% > >>>>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% > >>>>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% > BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527 > >>>>>>>> . > >>>>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al > >>>>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more > interesting, > >>>>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But > before > >>>>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica apart? > (replica > >>>>>>>> aside) :-) > >>>>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if > it is > >>>>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical > approach, > >>>>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its > framework > >>>>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a > >>>>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually > considered the > >>>>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism. > >>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our > discussions > >>>>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the > >>>>>>>> interpretation of these concepts. > >>>>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the > principle > >>>>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism > compatible > >>>>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that > is, it is > >>>>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and > >>>>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. > Or maybe > >>>>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to > add to > >>>>>>>> these two principles something third, say - > "subjectness"? > >>>>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and > similar > >>>>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of > our inquiry > >>>>>>>> and without answering them in the most general > form, we > >>>>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step. > But this > >>>>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again, > >>>>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic > theoretical > >>>>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that > >>>>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological > theory, > >>>>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially > >>>>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a > consistently > >>>>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the > >>>>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical > >>>>>>>> verbiage. > >>>>>> multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_ > >>>>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5> > >>>>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical > >>>>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions > between > >>>>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev. > >>>>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting > for me too > >>>>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to > education and > >>>>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from > Central > >>>>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego. > >>>>>>>>> Agitprop > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? sticks > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? in my teeth too, > >>>>>>>>> and I?d rather > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? compose > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? romances for you - > >>>>>>>>> more profit in it > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? and more charm. > >>>>>>>>> But I > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? subdued > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? myself, > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? setting my heel > >>>>>>>>> on the throat > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? of my own song. > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Vladimir > Mayakovski > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ? ??? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????? ?????, > >>>>>>>>> ? ??? ?? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????? ?? ??? ? > >>>>>>>>> ???????? ??? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????. > >>>>>>>>> ?? ? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ???? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????, > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????????? > >>>>>>>>> ?? ????? > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??????????? ?????. > >>>>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? ?????????? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again > forced > >>>>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to > >>>>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces > us to > >>>>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time, > literally > >>>>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the > abstract > >>>>>>>> to the concrete. > >>>>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting > questions > >>>>>>>> about how to understand the principle of > interaction as > >>>>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented > >>>>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will > answer > >>>>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed > >>>>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated > by me in > >>>>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago > ORIGIN OF > >>>>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian > >>>>>>>> ???????? ?????? ???????????? > >>>>>>>> ????????????. > >>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% > 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% > >>>>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> . > >>>>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the > >>>>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is > >>>>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in > published in > >>>>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange > >>>>>>>> reason was not published then or later. > >>>>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your > questions, > >>>>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text > >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS. > >>>>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would > like to > >>>>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the > interaction > >>>>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in > no case > >>>>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two > >>>>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false > approach > >>>>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism > has in my > >>>>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that > should > >>>>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is > obvious > >>>>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is > characteristic of the > >>>>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling > called the > >>>>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object > >>>>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are > not dealing > >>>>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with > the logic > >>>>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (?????? ????????? > >>>>>>>> ????????), or "organic" type of interaction in the > >>>>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words, > "positing" > >>>>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest, > >>>>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the > chemism > >>>>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the > sense > >>>>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its > active and > >>>>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic > interaction, in > >>>>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is > active, > >>>>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, > objective. There > >>>>>>>> are many interesting differences between them, > but let us > >>>>>>>> return to this somehow later. > >>>>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my > graduation > >>>>>>>> work of 1988: > >>>>>>>>> ?Active or predmet directed (object oriented) > relation > >>>>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction > of two > >>>>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the > sun taken > >>>>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is > >>>>>>>> neither ?predmet? for a plant, nor for astronomy. It > >>>>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively > due to > >>>>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer) > >>>>>>>> ?selecting? the sun as its predmet and ?scrupulously? > >>>>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the > plant > >>>>>>>> leaves (with his telescope). > >>>>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet > relation > >>>>>>>> as such is possible only between a living, > spontaneously > >>>>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital > >>>>>> activity. > >>>>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive > relation, > >>>>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not > >>>>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being > stimulated. > >>>>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism > does not > >>>>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with > >>>>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external > influence. > >>>>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it > is not > >>>>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) > can be > >>>>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the > organism > >>>>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external > thing > >>>>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into > >>>>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it > >>>>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of > >>>>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive > >>>>>> relation.? > >>>>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and > >>>>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the > >>>>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special > Mikhailovsky's > >>>>>>>> "addressing" to another person. > >>>>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered > >>>>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have > to try to > >>>>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human > consciousness > >>>>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has > been and > >>>>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology > >>>>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and > >>>>>> Ilyenkov. > >>>>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If > we want > >>>>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the > >>>>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract > to the > >>>>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers > >>>>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of > >>>>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct > method, to > >>>>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical > >>>>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to > choose one > >>>>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at > first > >>>>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a > >>>>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of > course > >>>>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic > >>>>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that > ".?the human > >>>>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single > >>>>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the > >>>>>>>> social relations.. " > >>>>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in > Vygotsky's > >>>>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a > purely > >>>>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to > >>>>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical > psychology > >>>>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from > Marx, then > >>>>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely > >>>>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us > with > >>>>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which > of them it > >>>>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first > place, > >>>>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have > to be > >>>>>>>> solved by ourselves. > >>>>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this > >>>>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two ?bosses?. A > >>>>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose > leader was > >>>>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov > undoubtedly > >>>>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object > oriented > >>>>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the > first, second > >>>>>>>> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach", > whereas > >>>>>>>> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was > >>>>>>>> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In > other > >>>>>>>> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas > >>>>>>>> "Leningraders" were for "communication". > >>>>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our > >>>>>>>> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not > a literal > >>>>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, > but our > >>>>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, > such a > >>>>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the > >>>>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered > something > >>>>>>>> rather indecent. > >>>>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of > >>>>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also > >>>>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic > victory, > >>>>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by > organizing > >>>>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was > >>>>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was > >>>>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the > post of > >>>>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the > dean of > >>>>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a > >>>>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader > >>>>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful > people in > >>>>>>>> the ideological department of the Central > Committee of > >>>>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of > scientific > >>>>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful > discussions in > >>>>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the > >>>>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed > supporters > >>>>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. > Davydov's > >>>>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology > of RAE > >>>>>>>> could not reverse the situation too. > >>>>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to > >>>>>>>> "communication" and "activity." > >>>>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial > category, > >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, > then for us > >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We > will > >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which > one can > >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including > >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious > that > >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented > >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication > from the > >>>>>>>> object oriented activity, which is an attribute > property > >>>>>>>> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love, > >>>>>>>> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting > plots, we > >>>>>>>> will never get life or object oriented activity > even with > >>>>>>>> the greatest diligence. > >>>>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, > but a fact > >>>>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive > >>>>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner > reflexivity and > >>>>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is > first > >>>>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic > level, > >>>>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex > dialectic > >>>>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in > the course > >>>>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is > traced. > >>>>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external > >>>>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals, > >>>>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives, > >>>>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a > >>>>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of > man. > >>>>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive > Activity" > >>>>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are > taken not > >>>>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of > >>>>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, > but as > >>>>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it?s > >>>>>>>> REFLEXIVE side. > >>>>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my > diploma > >>>>>>>> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist > >>>>>>>> theoretical solution to the question of the > relation of > >>>>>>>> objective activity and "communication". In the > same time, > >>>>>>>> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the > active > >>>>>>>> relation of the subject to the object and to > itself, is > >>>>>>>> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, > indeed, > >>>>>>>> any other, psychology. > >>>>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most > suitable > >>>>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts, > >>>>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the > problem of the > >>>>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large > >>>>>>>> English text > >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_ > >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS > >>>>>>>> and read it to the end :-). > >>>>>>>>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE > AND HUMAN > >>>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian ???????? ?????? > ???????????? > >>>>>>>> ????????????. > >>>>>> academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_ > >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_ > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_ > >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1% > 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82% > >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_ > >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0% > >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0% > >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5% > >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C% > D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> > >>>>>>>>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to > short > >>>>>>>> English one > >>>>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/ > >>>>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0% > >>>>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF% > >>>>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84% > >>>>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5% > >>>>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0% > >>>>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% > BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527. > >>>>>>>>> Sasha > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > From julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk Wed Oct 18 00:59:38 2017 From: julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk (Julian Williams) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 07:59:38 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: job-CSU Sacramento In-Reply-To: <9FC66B0A-837F-44EB-9A11-F4DE075A9DDB@gmail.com> References: <262AA420-C566-4810-8A1D-2B1156CDA2D7@manchester.ac.uk> , <9FC66B0A-837F-44EB-9A11-F4DE075A9DDB@gmail.com> Message-ID: <49BC6E1396C8F94B92715533ED4D20DC664DE32C@MBXP01.ds.man.ac.uk> Lynda Just to say for the list that I appreciate your need for qualitative expertise, especially in a culture where perhaps 'quantitative researchers' dominate (here its the opposite: we have a struggle to keep some quantitative courses on our training programmes). Innumerate/illiterate may sound unkind and if so I apologise: no offence meant. I still sigh at the term 'qualitative researcher' and even more 'quantitative researcher', which seems often to imply a specialism and even a closing of doors to new work. Every quantitative analysis/result demands a qualitative framework/interpretation; and almost all, or anyway more than we think qualitative research opens the possibility of quantitative models. If a research identity is bound up with the division we close doors. Julian ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Kris Gutierrez [gutierkd@gmail.com] Sent: 18 October 2017 04:53 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: job-CSU Sacramento Well said, Lynda! Kris D. Guti?rrez Carol Liu Professor Graduate School of Education Prolepsis Design Collaborative University of California, Berkeley 5629 Tolman Hall Berkeley, CA 94720-1670 gutierrkd@berkeley.edu > On Oct 17, 2017, at 8:30 PM, Stone, Lynda wrote: > > Hi again Julian?just saw this response. > > There was a reason for the qualitative emphasis and it had more to do with > competencies with > qualitative rather than lack of quantitative methodological knowledge?I am > assuming folks would have both. > However, I have discovered that those who attain there PhD?s here in > traditional human development programs (at least those who > apply for our positions) often have only a superficial knowledge of > qualitative research and no experience with it, as this is the case > with many of our faculty who are well trained to do laboratory research?- > The best approach, of course, is to generate an interesting research > question and then utilize whatever methods are appropriate for this > question. So the emphasis in the job call was to meet programmatic needs. > I hope this helps you understand why ?qualitative? was placed in the > requirement? My guess is that degrees in human development in your > setting might offer course work and practical experience in both methods, > as did my training. > > Sincerely, > -lynda > > > > > > > Lynda Stone, Ph.D. > Professor > Child Development > CSUS/UC-Links After-school Program Director > > > > > > On 10/17/17, 2:35 PM, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Julian > Williams" julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Lynda >> >> Always depressed to see researchers described as 'qualitative' presumably >> as opposed to 'quantitative' and therefore presumed to be innumerate, >> instead perhaps of being illiterate. >> >> Sigh. >> >> Julian >> >>> On 17 Oct 2017, at 21:06, Stone, Lynda wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hello All! >>> >>> Here is a description of job opening for a qualitative researcher >>> grounded in human development and interested in educational settings? >>> >>> >>> Responsibilities include: >>> ? Teaching undergraduate and graduate courses in Child/Human >>> Development, specifically courses related to qualitative research >>> methodology and areas of interest; >>> ? Maintaining a rigorous program of research related to school- and/or >>> community-based qualitative research; >>> ? Supervising and sponsoring student scholarship; assisting with >>> advising and curriculum development/assessment; >>> ? Working collegially with other faculty; and >>> ? Contributing to service in the department, college, university, and >>> profession. >>> >>> >>> Required Qualifications >>> >>> ? An earned Ph.D. in Child/Human Development, Applied Developmental >>> Psychology, Developmental Psychology, Developmental Science, Education, >>> and >>> Psychology, or an equivalent program. ABD candidates will be >>> considered. If ABD, all degree requirements must be completed by August >>> 2018 >>> ? Specialization in qualitative research methods with a strong emphasis >>> in developmental theory. >>> >>> >>> Preferred Qualifications >>> >>> ? Demonstrated leadership potential; >>> ? Interpersonal skills; >>> ? Ability to work with children, students, families, and communities >>> representing diverse populations from diverse backgrounds; >>> ? Demonstrated experience and effectiveness in college level, >>> undergraduate, and/or graduate level teaching; >>> ? Clearly defined interdisciplinary program of qualitative research and >>> publication focusing on children, adolescents, and/or young adults, or >>> demonstrated potential for establishing such a record; >>> ? Experience in educational settings and/or curriculum development. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Lynda Stone, Ph.D. >>> Professor >>> Child Development >>> CSUS/UC-Links After-school Program Director >>> >> > > From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Wed Oct 18 02:52:20 2017 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 10:52:20 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: job-CSU Sacramento In-Reply-To: References: <262AA420-C566-4810-8A1D-2B1156CDA2D7@manchester.ac.uk> Message-ID: Quality is a measure of system organisation. On 18 October 2017 at 00:40, mike cole wrote: > Hey fella's, ease up! > > Quality counts! :-) > > There are even members of this list who have used the distinction in > their writing. > > I am sure you will find great candidates for the job, Lynda. I hope the > nearby fires get people in California to increase the quantity of high > quality conservation practices. > > Warm, but not burning in So Cal. > > mike > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: > > > To a systems person, it is worse than that. It is a sad, impoverished > > distinction and merely indicates the state of affairs! > > > > Still reading people here, some good conversations going on. > > > > Best, > > Huw > > > > On 17 October 2017 at 22:35, Julian Williams < > > julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > Lynda > > > > > > Always depressed to see researchers described as 'qualitative' > presumably > > > as opposed to 'quantitative' and therefore presumed to be innumerate, > > > instead perhaps of being illiterate. > > > > > > Sigh. > > > > > > Julian > > > > > > > On 17 Oct 2017, at 21:06, Stone, Lynda > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello All! > > > > > > > > Here is a description of job opening for a qualitative researcher > > > > grounded in human development and interested in educational settings? > > > > > > > > > > > > Responsibilities include: > > > > ? Teaching undergraduate and graduate courses in Child/Human > > > Development, specifically courses related to qualitative research > > > methodology and areas of interest; > > > > ? Maintaining a rigorous program of research related to school- > and/or > > > community-based qualitative research; > > > > ? Supervising and sponsoring student scholarship; assisting with > > > advising and curriculum development/assessment; > > > > ? Working collegially with other faculty; and > > > > ? Contributing to service in the department, college, university, and > > > profession. > > > > > > > > > > > > Required Qualifications > > > > > > > > ? An earned Ph.D. in Child/Human Development, Applied Developmental > > > Psychology, Developmental Psychology, Developmental Science, Education, > > and > > > > Psychology, or an equivalent program. ABD candidates will be > > considered. > > > If ABD, all degree requirements must be completed by August 2018 > > > > ? Specialization in qualitative research methods with a strong > emphasis > > > in developmental theory. > > > > > > > > > > > > Preferred Qualifications > > > > > > > > ? Demonstrated leadership potential; > > > > ? Interpersonal skills; > > > > ? Ability to work with children, students, families, and communities > > > representing diverse populations from diverse backgrounds; > > > > ? Demonstrated experience and effectiveness in college level, > > > undergraduate, and/or graduate level teaching; > > > > ? Clearly defined interdisciplinary program of qualitative research > and > > > publication focusing on children, adolescents, and/or young adults, or > > > demonstrated potential for establishing such a record; > > > > ? Experience in educational settings and/or curriculum development. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lynda Stone, Ph.D. > > > > Professor > > > > Child Development > > > > CSUS/UC-Links After-school Program Director > > > > > > > > > > > > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 18 08:22:35 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 08:22:35 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: job-CSU Sacramento In-Reply-To: <49BC6E1396C8F94B92715533ED4D20DC664DE32C@MBXP01.ds.man.ac.uk> References: <262AA420-C566-4810-8A1D-2B1156CDA2D7@manchester.ac.uk> <9FC66B0A-837F-44EB-9A11-F4DE075A9DDB@gmail.com> <49BC6E1396C8F94B92715533ED4D20DC664DE32C@MBXP01.ds.man.ac.uk> Message-ID: Hi Julian & Huw- This seems just right to me: Every quantitative analysis/result demands a qualitative framework/interpretation; and almost all, or anyway more than we think qualitative research opens the possibility of quantitative models. And its interesting to think of quality as a "measure" of systems properties. Sounds positively quantitative! mike On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:59 AM, Julian Williams < julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > Lynda > > Just to say for the list that I appreciate your need for qualitative > expertise, especially in a culture where perhaps 'quantitative researchers' > dominate (here its the opposite: we have a struggle to keep some > quantitative courses on our training programmes). > > Innumerate/illiterate may sound unkind and if so I apologise: no offence > meant. > > I still sigh at the term 'qualitative researcher' and even more > 'quantitative researcher', which seems often to imply a specialism and even > a closing of doors to new work. Every quantitative analysis/result demands > a qualitative framework/interpretation; and almost all, or anyway more than > we think qualitative research opens the possibility of quantitative models. > If a research identity is bound up with the division we close doors. > > Julian > > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > on behalf of Kris Gutierrez [gutierkd@gmail.com] > Sent: 18 October 2017 04:53 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: job-CSU Sacramento > > Well said, Lynda! > > Kris D. Guti?rrez > Carol Liu Professor > Graduate School of Education > Prolepsis Design Collaborative > University of California, Berkeley > 5629 Tolman Hall > Berkeley, CA 94720-1670 > gutierrkd@berkeley.edu > > > > > > On Oct 17, 2017, at 8:30 PM, Stone, Lynda > wrote: > > > > Hi again Julian?just saw this response. > > > > There was a reason for the qualitative emphasis and it had more to do > with > > competencies with > > qualitative rather than lack of quantitative methodological knowledge?I > am > > assuming folks would have both. > > However, I have discovered that those who attain there PhD?s here in > > traditional human development programs (at least those who > > apply for our positions) often have only a superficial knowledge of > > qualitative research and no experience with it, as this is the case > > with many of our faculty who are well trained to do laboratory research?- > > The best approach, of course, is to generate an interesting research > > question and then utilize whatever methods are appropriate for this > > question. So the emphasis in the job call was to meet programmatic needs. > > I hope this helps you understand why ?qualitative? was placed in the > > requirement? My guess is that degrees in human development in your > > setting might offer course work and practical experience in both methods, > > as did my training. > > > > Sincerely, > > -lynda > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lynda Stone, Ph.D. > > Professor > > Child Development > > CSUS/UC-Links After-school Program Director > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/17/17, 2:35 PM, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of > Julian > > Williams" > julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > > > >> Lynda > >> > >> Always depressed to see researchers described as 'qualitative' > presumably > >> as opposed to 'quantitative' and therefore presumed to be innumerate, > >> instead perhaps of being illiterate. > >> > >> Sigh. > >> > >> Julian > >> > >>> On 17 Oct 2017, at 21:06, Stone, Lynda > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Hello All! > >>> > >>> Here is a description of job opening for a qualitative researcher > >>> grounded in human development and interested in educational settings? > >>> > >>> > >>> Responsibilities include: > >>> ? Teaching undergraduate and graduate courses in Child/Human > >>> Development, specifically courses related to qualitative research > >>> methodology and areas of interest; > >>> ? Maintaining a rigorous program of research related to school- and/or > >>> community-based qualitative research; > >>> ? Supervising and sponsoring student scholarship; assisting with > >>> advising and curriculum development/assessment; > >>> ? Working collegially with other faculty; and > >>> ? Contributing to service in the department, college, university, and > >>> profession. > >>> > >>> > >>> Required Qualifications > >>> > >>> ? An earned Ph.D. in Child/Human Development, Applied Developmental > >>> Psychology, Developmental Psychology, Developmental Science, Education, > >>> and > >>> Psychology, or an equivalent program. ABD candidates will be > >>> considered. If ABD, all degree requirements must be completed by August > >>> 2018 > >>> ? Specialization in qualitative research methods with a strong emphasis > >>> in developmental theory. > >>> > >>> > >>> Preferred Qualifications > >>> > >>> ? Demonstrated leadership potential; > >>> ? Interpersonal skills; > >>> ? Ability to work with children, students, families, and communities > >>> representing diverse populations from diverse backgrounds; > >>> ? Demonstrated experience and effectiveness in college level, > >>> undergraduate, and/or graduate level teaching; > >>> ? Clearly defined interdisciplinary program of qualitative research and > >>> publication focusing on children, adolescents, and/or young adults, or > >>> demonstrated potential for establishing such a record; > >>> ? Experience in educational settings and/or curriculum development. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Lynda Stone, Ph.D. > >>> Professor > >>> Child Development > >>> CSUS/UC-Links After-school Program Director > >>> > >> > > > > > > From gutierkd@gmail.com Wed Oct 18 08:36:42 2017 From: gutierkd@gmail.com (Kris Gutierrez) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 08:36:42 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: job-CSU Sacramento In-Reply-To: References: <262AA420-C566-4810-8A1D-2B1156CDA2D7@manchester.ac.uk> <9FC66B0A-837F-44EB-9A11-F4DE075A9DDB@gmail.com> <49BC6E1396C8F94B92715533ED4D20DC664DE32C@MBXP01.ds.man.ac.uk> Message-ID: Apropos your comment Mike, Fred Erickson and I wrote a relevant piece entitled ?Culture and Rigor? (Ed Researcher, 2002) that aligns with your point. Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 18, 2017, at 8:22 AM, mike cole wrote: > > Hi Julian & Huw- > > This seems just right to me: > > Every quantitative analysis/result demands a qualitative > framework/interpretation; and almost all, or anyway more than we think > qualitative research opens the possibility of quantitative models. > > And its interesting to think of quality as a "measure" of systems > properties. Sounds positively quantitative! > > mike > > > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:59 AM, Julian Williams < > julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Lynda >> >> Just to say for the list that I appreciate your need for qualitative >> expertise, especially in a culture where perhaps 'quantitative researchers' >> dominate (here its the opposite: we have a struggle to keep some >> quantitative courses on our training programmes). >> >> Innumerate/illiterate may sound unkind and if so I apologise: no offence >> meant. >> >> I still sigh at the term 'qualitative researcher' and even more >> 'quantitative researcher', which seems often to imply a specialism and even >> a closing of doors to new work. Every quantitative analysis/result demands >> a qualitative framework/interpretation; and almost all, or anyway more than >> we think qualitative research opens the possibility of quantitative models. >> If a research identity is bound up with the division we close doors. >> >> Julian >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] >> on behalf of Kris Gutierrez [gutierkd@gmail.com] >> Sent: 18 October 2017 04:53 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: job-CSU Sacramento >> >> Well said, Lynda! >> >> Kris D. Guti?rrez >> Carol Liu Professor >> Graduate School of Education >> Prolepsis Design Collaborative >> University of California, Berkeley >> 5629 Tolman Hall >> Berkeley, CA 94720-1670 >> gutierrkd@berkeley.edu >> >> >> >> >>> On Oct 17, 2017, at 8:30 PM, Stone, Lynda >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi again Julian?just saw this response. >>> >>> There was a reason for the qualitative emphasis and it had more to do >> with >>> competencies with >>> qualitative rather than lack of quantitative methodological knowledge?I >> am >>> assuming folks would have both. >>> However, I have discovered that those who attain there PhD?s here in >>> traditional human development programs (at least those who >>> apply for our positions) often have only a superficial knowledge of >>> qualitative research and no experience with it, as this is the case >>> with many of our faculty who are well trained to do laboratory research?- >>> The best approach, of course, is to generate an interesting research >>> question and then utilize whatever methods are appropriate for this >>> question. So the emphasis in the job call was to meet programmatic needs. >>> I hope this helps you understand why ?qualitative? was placed in the >>> requirement? My guess is that degrees in human development in your >>> setting might offer course work and practical experience in both methods, >>> as did my training. >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> -lynda >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Lynda Stone, Ph.D. >>> Professor >>> Child Development >>> CSUS/UC-Links After-school Program Director >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/17/17, 2:35 PM, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of >> Julian >>> Williams" >> julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> Lynda >>>> >>>> Always depressed to see researchers described as 'qualitative' >> presumably >>>> as opposed to 'quantitative' and therefore presumed to be innumerate, >>>> instead perhaps of being illiterate. >>>> >>>> Sigh. >>>> >>>> Julian >>>> >>>>> On 17 Oct 2017, at 21:06, Stone, Lynda >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hello All! >>>>> >>>>> Here is a description of job opening for a qualitative researcher >>>>> grounded in human development and interested in educational settings? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Responsibilities include: >>>>> ? Teaching undergraduate and graduate courses in Child/Human >>>>> Development, specifically courses related to qualitative research >>>>> methodology and areas of interest; >>>>> ? Maintaining a rigorous program of research related to school- and/or >>>>> community-based qualitative research; >>>>> ? Supervising and sponsoring student scholarship; assisting with >>>>> advising and curriculum development/assessment; >>>>> ? Working collegially with other faculty; and >>>>> ? Contributing to service in the department, college, university, and >>>>> profession. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Required Qualifications >>>>> >>>>> ? An earned Ph.D. in Child/Human Development, Applied Developmental >>>>> Psychology, Developmental Psychology, Developmental Science, Education, >>>>> and >>>>> Psychology, or an equivalent program. ABD candidates will be >>>>> considered. If ABD, all degree requirements must be completed by August >>>>> 2018 >>>>> ? Specialization in qualitative research methods with a strong emphasis >>>>> in developmental theory. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Preferred Qualifications >>>>> >>>>> ? Demonstrated leadership potential; >>>>> ? Interpersonal skills; >>>>> ? Ability to work with children, students, families, and communities >>>>> representing diverse populations from diverse backgrounds; >>>>> ? Demonstrated experience and effectiveness in college level, >>>>> undergraduate, and/or graduate level teaching; >>>>> ? Clearly defined interdisciplinary program of qualitative research and >>>>> publication focusing on children, adolescents, and/or young adults, or >>>>> demonstrated potential for establishing such a record; >>>>> ? Experience in educational settings and/or curriculum development. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Lynda Stone, Ph.D. >>>>> Professor >>>>> Child Development >>>>> CSUS/UC-Links After-school Program Director >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 18 09:00:40 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 16:00:40 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: job-CSU Sacramento In-Reply-To: References: <262AA420-C566-4810-8A1D-2B1156CDA2D7@manchester.ac.uk> <9FC66B0A-837F-44EB-9A11-F4DE075A9DDB@gmail.com> <49BC6E1396C8F94B92715533ED4D20DC664DE32C@MBXP01.ds.man.ac.uk> Message-ID: Not my pint, Kris... Julian?s. Why not send around your paper? Mike On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 8:40 AM Kris Gutierrez wrote: > Apropos your comment Mike, Fred Erickson and I wrote a relevant piece > entitled ?Culture and Rigor? (Ed Researcher, 2002) that aligns with your > point. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Oct 18, 2017, at 8:22 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > > Hi Julian & Huw- > > > > This seems just right to me: > > > > Every quantitative analysis/result demands a qualitative > > framework/interpretation; and almost all, or anyway more than we think > > qualitative research opens the possibility of quantitative models. > > > > And its interesting to think of quality as a "measure" of systems > > properties. Sounds positively quantitative! > > > > mike > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:59 AM, Julian Williams < > > julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > > > >> Lynda > >> > >> Just to say for the list that I appreciate your need for qualitative > >> expertise, especially in a culture where perhaps 'quantitative > researchers' > >> dominate (here its the opposite: we have a struggle to keep some > >> quantitative courses on our training programmes). > >> > >> Innumerate/illiterate may sound unkind and if so I apologise: no offence > >> meant. > >> > >> I still sigh at the term 'qualitative researcher' and even more > >> 'quantitative researcher', which seems often to imply a specialism and > even > >> a closing of doors to new work. Every quantitative analysis/result > demands > >> a qualitative framework/interpretation; and almost all, or anyway more > than > >> we think qualitative research opens the possibility of quantitative > models. > >> If a research identity is bound up with the division we close doors. > >> > >> Julian > >> > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > >> on behalf of Kris Gutierrez [gutierkd@gmail.com] > >> Sent: 18 October 2017 04:53 > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: job-CSU Sacramento > >> > >> Well said, Lynda! > >> > >> Kris D. Guti?rrez > >> Carol Liu Professor > >> Graduate School of Education > >> Prolepsis Design Collaborative > >> University of California, Berkeley > >> 5629 Tolman Hall > >> Berkeley, CA 94720-1670 > >> gutierrkd@berkeley.edu > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Oct 17, 2017, at 8:30 PM, Stone, Lynda > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi again Julian?just saw this response. > >>> > >>> There was a reason for the qualitative emphasis and it had more to do > >> with > >>> competencies with > >>> qualitative rather than lack of quantitative methodological knowledge?I > >> am > >>> assuming folks would have both. > >>> However, I have discovered that those who attain there PhD?s here in > >>> traditional human development programs (at least those who > >>> apply for our positions) often have only a superficial knowledge of > >>> qualitative research and no experience with it, as this is the case > >>> with many of our faculty who are well trained to do laboratory > research?- > >>> The best approach, of course, is to generate an interesting research > >>> question and then utilize whatever methods are appropriate for this > >>> question. So the emphasis in the job call was to meet programmatic > needs. > >>> I hope this helps you understand why ?qualitative? was placed in the > >>> requirement? My guess is that degrees in human development in your > >>> setting might offer course work and practical experience in both > methods, > >>> as did my training. > >>> > >>> Sincerely, > >>> -lynda > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Lynda Stone, Ph.D. > >>> Professor > >>> Child Development > >>> CSUS/UC-Links After-school Program Director > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 10/17/17, 2:35 PM, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of > >> Julian > >>> Williams" >>> julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Lynda > >>>> > >>>> Always depressed to see researchers described as 'qualitative' > >> presumably > >>>> as opposed to 'quantitative' and therefore presumed to be innumerate, > >>>> instead perhaps of being illiterate. > >>>> > >>>> Sigh. > >>>> > >>>> Julian > >>>> > >>>>> On 17 Oct 2017, at 21:06, Stone, Lynda > >> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Hello All! > >>>>> > >>>>> Here is a description of job opening for a qualitative researcher > >>>>> grounded in human development and interested in educational settings? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Responsibilities include: > >>>>> ? Teaching undergraduate and graduate courses in Child/Human > >>>>> Development, specifically courses related to qualitative research > >>>>> methodology and areas of interest; > >>>>> ? Maintaining a rigorous program of research related to school- > and/or > >>>>> community-based qualitative research; > >>>>> ? Supervising and sponsoring student scholarship; assisting with > >>>>> advising and curriculum development/assessment; > >>>>> ? Working collegially with other faculty; and > >>>>> ? Contributing to service in the department, college, university, and > >>>>> profession. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Required Qualifications > >>>>> > >>>>> ? An earned Ph.D. in Child/Human Development, Applied Developmental > >>>>> Psychology, Developmental Psychology, Developmental Science, > Education, > >>>>> and > >>>>> Psychology, or an equivalent program. ABD candidates will be > >>>>> considered. If ABD, all degree requirements must be completed by > August > >>>>> 2018 > >>>>> ? Specialization in qualitative research methods with a strong > emphasis > >>>>> in developmental theory. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Preferred Qualifications > >>>>> > >>>>> ? Demonstrated leadership potential; > >>>>> ? Interpersonal skills; > >>>>> ? Ability to work with children, students, families, and communities > >>>>> representing diverse populations from diverse backgrounds; > >>>>> ? Demonstrated experience and effectiveness in college level, > >>>>> undergraduate, and/or graduate level teaching; > >>>>> ? Clearly defined interdisciplinary program of qualitative research > and > >>>>> publication focusing on children, adolescents, and/or young adults, > or > >>>>> demonstrated potential for establishing such a record; > >>>>> ? Experience in educational settings and/or curriculum development. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Lynda Stone, Ph.D. > >>>>> Professor > >>>>> Child Development > >>>>> CSUS/UC-Links After-school Program Director > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > From lstone@skymail.csus.edu Wed Oct 18 09:15:15 2017 From: lstone@skymail.csus.edu (Stone, Lynda) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 16:15:15 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: job-CSU Sacramento In-Reply-To: References: <262AA420-C566-4810-8A1D-2B1156CDA2D7@manchester.ac.uk> <9FC66B0A-837F-44EB-9A11-F4DE075A9DDB@gmail.com> <49BC6E1396C8F94B92715533ED4D20DC664DE32C@MBXP01.ds.man.ac.uk> Message-ID: Hey Kris, It would be great to have your paper?looking Forward to reading it? And, I agree with Julian?s point, or my take on it, that is, we need creatively dynamic and fluild methodological approaches to capture and better understand A constantly changing social and cultural world? So, just to share, at present I?m in the middle of Karen Barad?s work?she draws from Her understanding of quantum physics to consider agency and identity?it?s fun stuff? -lynda Lynda Stone, Ph.D. Professor Child Development CSUS/UC-Links After-school Program Director On 10/18/17, 9:00 AM, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of mike cole" wrote: >Not my pint, Kris... Julian?s. >Why not send around your paper? >Mike > >On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 8:40 AM Kris Gutierrez wrote: > >> Apropos your comment Mike, Fred Erickson and I wrote a relevant piece >> entitled ?Culture and Rigor? (Ed Researcher, 2002) that aligns with your >> point. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> > On Oct 18, 2017, at 8:22 AM, mike cole wrote: >> > >> > Hi Julian & Huw- >> > >> > This seems just right to me: >> > >> > Every quantitative analysis/result demands a qualitative >> > framework/interpretation; and almost all, or anyway more than we think >> > qualitative research opens the possibility of quantitative models. >> > >> > And its interesting to think of quality as a "measure" of systems >> > properties. Sounds positively quantitative! >> > >> > mike >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:59 AM, Julian Williams < >> > julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >> > >> >> Lynda >> >> >> >> Just to say for the list that I appreciate your need for qualitative >> >> expertise, especially in a culture where perhaps 'quantitative >> researchers' >> >> dominate (here its the opposite: we have a struggle to keep some >> >> quantitative courses on our training programmes). >> >> >> >> Innumerate/illiterate may sound unkind and if so I apologise: no >>offence >> >> meant. >> >> >> >> I still sigh at the term 'qualitative researcher' and even more >> >> 'quantitative researcher', which seems often to imply a specialism >>and >> even >> >> a closing of doors to new work. Every quantitative analysis/result >> demands >> >> a qualitative framework/interpretation; and almost all, or anyway >>more >> than >> >> we think qualitative research opens the possibility of quantitative >> models. >> >> If a research identity is bound up with the division we close doors. >> >> >> >> Julian >> >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>[xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] >> >> on behalf of Kris Gutierrez [gutierkd@gmail.com] >> >> Sent: 18 October 2017 04:53 >> >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: job-CSU Sacramento >> >> >> >> Well said, Lynda! >> >> >> >> Kris D. Guti?rrez >> >> Carol Liu Professor >> >> Graduate School of Education >> >> Prolepsis Design Collaborative >> >> University of California, Berkeley >> >> 5629 Tolman Hall >> >> Berkeley, CA 94720-1670 >> >> gutierrkd@berkeley.edu >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Oct 17, 2017, at 8:30 PM, Stone, Lynda >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi again Julian?just saw this response. >> >>> >> >>> There was a reason for the qualitative emphasis and it had more to >>do >> >> with >> >>> competencies with >> >>> qualitative rather than lack of quantitative methodological >>knowledge?I >> >> am >> >>> assuming folks would have both. >> >>> However, I have discovered that those who attain there PhD?s here in >> >>> traditional human development programs (at least those who >> >>> apply for our positions) often have only a superficial knowledge of >> >>> qualitative research and no experience with it, as this is the case >> >>> with many of our faculty who are well trained to do laboratory >> research?- >> >>> The best approach, of course, is to generate an interesting research >> >>> question and then utilize whatever methods are appropriate for this >> >>> question. So the emphasis in the job call was to meet programmatic >> needs. >> >>> I hope this helps you understand why ?qualitative? was placed in the >> >>> requirement? My guess is that degrees in human development in your >> >>> setting might offer course work and practical experience in both >> methods, >> >>> as did my training. >> >>> >> >>> Sincerely, >> >>> -lynda >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Lynda Stone, Ph.D. >> >>> Professor >> >>> Child Development >> >>> CSUS/UC-Links After-school Program Director >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 10/17/17, 2:35 PM, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of >> >> Julian >> >>> Williams" > >>> julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Lynda >> >>>> >> >>>> Always depressed to see researchers described as 'qualitative' >> >> presumably >> >>>> as opposed to 'quantitative' and therefore presumed to be >>innumerate, >> >>>> instead perhaps of being illiterate. >> >>>> >> >>>> Sigh. >> >>>> >> >>>> Julian >> >>>> >> >>>>> On 17 Oct 2017, at 21:06, Stone, Lynda >> >> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Hello All! >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Here is a description of job opening for a qualitative researcher >> >>>>> grounded in human development and interested in educational >>settings? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Responsibilities include: >> >>>>> ? Teaching undergraduate and graduate courses in Child/Human >> >>>>> Development, specifically courses related to qualitative research >> >>>>> methodology and areas of interest; >> >>>>> ? Maintaining a rigorous program of research related to school- >> and/or >> >>>>> community-based qualitative research; >> >>>>> ? Supervising and sponsoring student scholarship; assisting with >> >>>>> advising and curriculum development/assessment; >> >>>>> ? Working collegially with other faculty; and >> >>>>> ? Contributing to service in the department, college, university, >>and >> >>>>> profession. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Required Qualifications >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ? An earned Ph.D. in Child/Human Development, Applied >>Developmental >> >>>>> Psychology, Developmental Psychology, Developmental Science, >> Education, >> >>>>> and >> >>>>> Psychology, or an equivalent program. ABD candidates will be >> >>>>> considered. If ABD, all degree requirements must be completed by >> August >> >>>>> 2018 >> >>>>> ? Specialization in qualitative research methods with a strong >> emphasis >> >>>>> in developmental theory. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Preferred Qualifications >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ? Demonstrated leadership potential; >> >>>>> ? Interpersonal skills; >> >>>>> ? Ability to work with children, students, families, and >>communities >> >>>>> representing diverse populations from diverse backgrounds; >> >>>>> ? Demonstrated experience and effectiveness in college level, >> >>>>> undergraduate, and/or graduate level teaching; >> >>>>> ? Clearly defined interdisciplinary program of qualitative >>research >> and >> >>>>> publication focusing on children, adolescents, and/or young >>adults, >> or >> >>>>> demonstrated potential for establishing such a record; >> >>>>> ? Experience in educational settings and/or curriculum >>development. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Lynda Stone, Ph.D. >> >>>>> Professor >> >>>>> Child Development >> >>>>> CSUS/UC-Links After-school Program Director >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> From gutierkd@gmail.com Wed Oct 18 11:21:06 2017 From: gutierkd@gmail.com (Kris Gutierrez) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:21:06 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: job-CSU Sacramento In-Reply-To: References: <262AA420-C566-4810-8A1D-2B1156CDA2D7@manchester.ac.uk> <9FC66B0A-837F-44EB-9A11-F4DE075A9DDB@gmail.com> <49BC6E1396C8F94B92715533ED4D20DC664DE32C@MBXP01.ds.man.ac.uk> Message-ID: <291EE73F-B9CB-412E-9135-7CBFCECF272E@gmail.com> Mike/Julian thanks! Here is the piece, Alfredo. Agree with the points Julian and Lynda made. I think the 2002 article is still relevant but perhaps old news to this community. Attaching as requested. Some context relevant to the article: I had the real pleasure of co-designing and co-teaching the qualitative research courses strand for many years with Fred Erickson, a wise voice in these matters. We were both housed in the Social Research Methodology program at UCLA where the quant/qual discourse/debate was challenged in the overall program, in courses, and in our own training and work?no divisions encouraged or closing of doors, as Julian wrote. (I?m currently teaching a course in Advanced Qualitative Methods here at Cal and will encourage students to view/engage this conversation.) Kris Kris D. Guti?rrez Carol Liu Professor Graduate School of Education Prolepsis Design Collaborative University of California, Berkeley 5629 Tolman Hall Berkeley, CA 94720-1670 gutierrkd@berkeley.edu > On Oct 18, 2017, at 9:00 AM, mike cole wrote: > > Not my pint, Kris... Julian?s. > Why not send around your paper? > Mike > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 8:40 AM Kris Gutierrez wrote: > >> Apropos your comment Mike, Fred Erickson and I wrote a relevant piece >> entitled ?Culture and Rigor? (Ed Researcher, 2002) that aligns with your >> point. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Oct 18, 2017, at 8:22 AM, mike cole wrote: >>> >>> Hi Julian & Huw- >>> >>> This seems just right to me: >>> >>> Every quantitative analysis/result demands a qualitative >>> framework/interpretation; and almost all, or anyway more than we think >>> qualitative research opens the possibility of quantitative models. >>> >>> And its interesting to think of quality as a "measure" of systems >>> properties. Sounds positively quantitative! >>> >>> mike >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:59 AM, Julian Williams < >>> julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> Lynda >>>> >>>> Just to say for the list that I appreciate your need for qualitative >>>> expertise, especially in a culture where perhaps 'quantitative >> researchers' >>>> dominate (here its the opposite: we have a struggle to keep some >>>> quantitative courses on our training programmes). >>>> >>>> Innumerate/illiterate may sound unkind and if so I apologise: no offence >>>> meant. >>>> >>>> I still sigh at the term 'qualitative researcher' and even more >>>> 'quantitative researcher', which seems often to imply a specialism and >> even >>>> a closing of doors to new work. Every quantitative analysis/result >> demands >>>> a qualitative framework/interpretation; and almost all, or anyway more >> than >>>> we think qualitative research opens the possibility of quantitative >> models. >>>> If a research identity is bound up with the division we close doors. >>>> >>>> Julian >>>> >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] >>>> on behalf of Kris Gutierrez [gutierkd@gmail.com] >>>> Sent: 18 October 2017 04:53 >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: job-CSU Sacramento >>>> >>>> Well said, Lynda! >>>> >>>> Kris D. Guti?rrez >>>> Carol Liu Professor >>>> Graduate School of Education >>>> Prolepsis Design Collaborative >>>> University of California, Berkeley >>>> 5629 Tolman Hall >>>> Berkeley, CA 94720-1670 >>>> gutierrkd@berkeley.edu >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Oct 17, 2017, at 8:30 PM, Stone, Lynda >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi again Julian?just saw this response. >>>>> >>>>> There was a reason for the qualitative emphasis and it had more to do >>>> with >>>>> competencies with >>>>> qualitative rather than lack of quantitative methodological knowledge?I >>>> am >>>>> assuming folks would have both. >>>>> However, I have discovered that those who attain there PhD?s here in >>>>> traditional human development programs (at least those who >>>>> apply for our positions) often have only a superficial knowledge of >>>>> qualitative research and no experience with it, as this is the case >>>>> with many of our faculty who are well trained to do laboratory >> research?- >>>>> The best approach, of course, is to generate an interesting research >>>>> question and then utilize whatever methods are appropriate for this >>>>> question. So the emphasis in the job call was to meet programmatic >> needs. >>>>> I hope this helps you understand why ?qualitative? was placed in the >>>>> requirement? My guess is that degrees in human development in your >>>>> setting might offer course work and practical experience in both >> methods, >>>>> as did my training. >>>>> >>>>> Sincerely, >>>>> -lynda >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Lynda Stone, Ph.D. >>>>> Professor >>>>> Child Development >>>>> CSUS/UC-Links After-school Program Director >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10/17/17, 2:35 PM, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of >>>> Julian >>>>> Williams" >>>> julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Lynda >>>>>> >>>>>> Always depressed to see researchers described as 'qualitative' >>>> presumably >>>>>> as opposed to 'quantitative' and therefore presumed to be innumerate, >>>>>> instead perhaps of being illiterate. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sigh. >>>>>> >>>>>> Julian >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 17 Oct 2017, at 21:06, Stone, Lynda >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello All! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here is a description of job opening for a qualitative researcher >>>>>>> grounded in human development and interested in educational settings? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Responsibilities include: >>>>>>> ? Teaching undergraduate and graduate courses in Child/Human >>>>>>> Development, specifically courses related to qualitative research >>>>>>> methodology and areas of interest; >>>>>>> ? Maintaining a rigorous program of research related to school- >> and/or >>>>>>> community-based qualitative research; >>>>>>> ? Supervising and sponsoring student scholarship; assisting with >>>>>>> advising and curriculum development/assessment; >>>>>>> ? Working collegially with other faculty; and >>>>>>> ? Contributing to service in the department, college, university, and >>>>>>> profession. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Required Qualifications >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? An earned Ph.D. in Child/Human Development, Applied Developmental >>>>>>> Psychology, Developmental Psychology, Developmental Science, >> Education, >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> Psychology, or an equivalent program. ABD candidates will be >>>>>>> considered. If ABD, all degree requirements must be completed by >> August >>>>>>> 2018 >>>>>>> ? Specialization in qualitative research methods with a strong >> emphasis >>>>>>> in developmental theory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Preferred Qualifications >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? Demonstrated leadership potential; >>>>>>> ? Interpersonal skills; >>>>>>> ? Ability to work with children, students, families, and communities >>>>>>> representing diverse populations from diverse backgrounds; >>>>>>> ? Demonstrated experience and effectiveness in college level, >>>>>>> undergraduate, and/or graduate level teaching; >>>>>>> ? Clearly defined interdisciplinary program of qualitative research >> and >>>>>>> publication focusing on children, adolescents, and/or young adults, >> or >>>>>>> demonstrated potential for establishing such a record; >>>>>>> ? Experience in educational settings and/or curriculum development. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lynda Stone, Ph.D. >>>>>>> Professor >>>>>>> Child Development >>>>>>> CSUS/UC-Links After-school Program Director >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Wed Oct 18 11:28:32 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:28:32 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: job-CSU Sacramento In-Reply-To: <291EE73F-B9CB-412E-9135-7CBFCECF272E@gmail.com> References: <262AA420-C566-4810-8A1D-2B1156CDA2D7@manchester.ac.uk> <9FC66B0A-837F-44EB-9A11-F4DE075A9DDB@gmail.com> <49BC6E1396C8F94B92715533ED4D20DC664DE32C@MBXP01.ds.man.ac.uk> , <291EE73F-B9CB-412E-9135-7CBFCECF272E@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1508351313943.98325@iped.uio.no> Thanks so much for your willingness to share, Kris. I think the attachment did not come through though, Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Kris Gutierrez Sent: 18 October 2017 20:21 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: job-CSU Sacramento Mike/Julian thanks! Here is the piece, Alfredo. Agree with the points Julian and Lynda made. I think the 2002 article is still relevant but perhaps old news to this community. Attaching as requested. Some context relevant to the article: I had the real pleasure of co-designing and co-teaching the qualitative research courses strand for many years with Fred Erickson, a wise voice in these matters. We were both housed in the Social Research Methodology program at UCLA where the quant/qual discourse/debate was challenged in the overall program, in courses, and in our own training and work?no divisions encouraged or closing of doors, as Julian wrote. (I?m currently teaching a course in Advanced Qualitative Methods here at Cal and will encourage students to view/engage this conversation.) Kris Kris D. Guti?rrez Carol Liu Professor Graduate School of Education Prolepsis Design Collaborative University of California, Berkeley 5629 Tolman Hall Berkeley, CA 94720-1670 gutierrkd@berkeley.edu > On Oct 18, 2017, at 9:00 AM, mike cole wrote: > > Not my pint, Kris... Julian?s. > Why not send around your paper? > Mike > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 8:40 AM Kris Gutierrez wrote: > >> Apropos your comment Mike, Fred Erickson and I wrote a relevant piece >> entitled ?Culture and Rigor? (Ed Researcher, 2002) that aligns with your >> point. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Oct 18, 2017, at 8:22 AM, mike cole wrote: >>> >>> Hi Julian & Huw- >>> >>> This seems just right to me: >>> >>> Every quantitative analysis/result demands a qualitative >>> framework/interpretation; and almost all, or anyway more than we think >>> qualitative research opens the possibility of quantitative models. >>> >>> And its interesting to think of quality as a "measure" of systems >>> properties. Sounds positively quantitative! >>> >>> mike >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:59 AM, Julian Williams < >>> julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> Lynda >>>> >>>> Just to say for the list that I appreciate your need for qualitative >>>> expertise, especially in a culture where perhaps 'quantitative >> researchers' >>>> dominate (here its the opposite: we have a struggle to keep some >>>> quantitative courses on our training programmes). >>>> >>>> Innumerate/illiterate may sound unkind and if so I apologise: no offence >>>> meant. >>>> >>>> I still sigh at the term 'qualitative researcher' and even more >>>> 'quantitative researcher', which seems often to imply a specialism and >> even >>>> a closing of doors to new work. Every quantitative analysis/result >> demands >>>> a qualitative framework/interpretation; and almost all, or anyway more >> than >>>> we think qualitative research opens the possibility of quantitative >> models. >>>> If a research identity is bound up with the division we close doors. >>>> >>>> Julian >>>> >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] >>>> on behalf of Kris Gutierrez [gutierkd@gmail.com] >>>> Sent: 18 October 2017 04:53 >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: job-CSU Sacramento >>>> >>>> Well said, Lynda! >>>> >>>> Kris D. Guti?rrez >>>> Carol Liu Professor >>>> Graduate School of Education >>>> Prolepsis Design Collaborative >>>> University of California, Berkeley >>>> 5629 Tolman Hall >>>> Berkeley, CA 94720-1670 >>>> gutierrkd@berkeley.edu >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Oct 17, 2017, at 8:30 PM, Stone, Lynda >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi again Julian?just saw this response. >>>>> >>>>> There was a reason for the qualitative emphasis and it had more to do >>>> with >>>>> competencies with >>>>> qualitative rather than lack of quantitative methodological knowledge?I >>>> am >>>>> assuming folks would have both. >>>>> However, I have discovered that those who attain there PhD?s here in >>>>> traditional human development programs (at least those who >>>>> apply for our positions) often have only a superficial knowledge of >>>>> qualitative research and no experience with it, as this is the case >>>>> with many of our faculty who are well trained to do laboratory >> research?- >>>>> The best approach, of course, is to generate an interesting research >>>>> question and then utilize whatever methods are appropriate for this >>>>> question. So the emphasis in the job call was to meet programmatic >> needs. >>>>> I hope this helps you understand why ?qualitative? was placed in the >>>>> requirement? My guess is that degrees in human development in your >>>>> setting might offer course work and practical experience in both >> methods, >>>>> as did my training. >>>>> >>>>> Sincerely, >>>>> -lynda >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Lynda Stone, Ph.D. >>>>> Professor >>>>> Child Development >>>>> CSUS/UC-Links After-school Program Director >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10/17/17, 2:35 PM, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of >>>> Julian >>>>> Williams" >>>> julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Lynda >>>>>> >>>>>> Always depressed to see researchers described as 'qualitative' >>>> presumably >>>>>> as opposed to 'quantitative' and therefore presumed to be innumerate, >>>>>> instead perhaps of being illiterate. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sigh. >>>>>> >>>>>> Julian >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 17 Oct 2017, at 21:06, Stone, Lynda >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello All! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here is a description of job opening for a qualitative researcher >>>>>>> grounded in human development and interested in educational settings? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Responsibilities include: >>>>>>> ? Teaching undergraduate and graduate courses in Child/Human >>>>>>> Development, specifically courses related to qualitative research >>>>>>> methodology and areas of interest; >>>>>>> ? Maintaining a rigorous program of research related to school- >> and/or >>>>>>> community-based qualitative research; >>>>>>> ? Supervising and sponsoring student scholarship; assisting with >>>>>>> advising and curriculum development/assessment; >>>>>>> ? Working collegially with other faculty; and >>>>>>> ? Contributing to service in the department, college, university, and >>>>>>> profession. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Required Qualifications >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? An earned Ph.D. in Child/Human Development, Applied Developmental >>>>>>> Psychology, Developmental Psychology, Developmental Science, >> Education, >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> Psychology, or an equivalent program. ABD candidates will be >>>>>>> considered. If ABD, all degree requirements must be completed by >> August >>>>>>> 2018 >>>>>>> ? Specialization in qualitative research methods with a strong >> emphasis >>>>>>> in developmental theory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Preferred Qualifications >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? Demonstrated leadership potential; >>>>>>> ? Interpersonal skills; >>>>>>> ? Ability to work with children, students, families, and communities >>>>>>> representing diverse populations from diverse backgrounds; >>>>>>> ? Demonstrated experience and effectiveness in college level, >>>>>>> undergraduate, and/or graduate level teaching; >>>>>>> ? Clearly defined interdisciplinary program of qualitative research >> and >>>>>>> publication focusing on children, adolescents, and/or young adults, >> or >>>>>>> demonstrated potential for establishing such a record; >>>>>>> ? Experience in educational settings and/or curriculum development. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lynda Stone, Ph.D. >>>>>>> Professor >>>>>>> Child Development >>>>>>> CSUS/UC-Links After-school Program Director >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Wed Oct 18 11:42:58 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:42:58 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: job-CSU Sacramento + Erickson & Gutierrez 2002 In-Reply-To: <1508351313943.98325@iped.uio.no> References: <262AA420-C566-4810-8A1D-2B1156CDA2D7@manchester.ac.uk> <9FC66B0A-837F-44EB-9A11-F4DE075A9DDB@gmail.com> <49BC6E1396C8F94B92715533ED4D20DC664DE32C@MBXP01.ds.man.ac.uk> , <291EE73F-B9CB-412E-9135-7CBFCECF272E@gmail.com>, <1508351313943.98325@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <1508352180387.83342@iped.uio.no> No worries Kris, here the attachment, thanks! Alfredo _________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil Sent: 18 October 2017 20:28 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: job-CSU Sacramento Thanks so much for your willingness to share, Kris. I think the attachment did not come through though, Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Kris Gutierrez Sent: 18 October 2017 20:21 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: job-CSU Sacramento Mike/Julian thanks! Here is the piece, Alfredo. Agree with the points Julian and Lynda made. I think the 2002 article is still relevant but perhaps old news to this community. Attaching as requested. Some context relevant to the article: I had the real pleasure of co-designing and co-teaching the qualitative research courses strand for many years with Fred Erickson, a wise voice in these matters. We were both housed in the Social Research Methodology program at UCLA where the quant/qual discourse/debate was challenged in the overall program, in courses, and in our own training and work?no divisions encouraged or closing of doors, as Julian wrote. (I?m currently teaching a course in Advanced Qualitative Methods here at Cal and will encourage students to view/engage this conversation.) Kris Kris D. Guti?rrez Carol Liu Professor Graduate School of Education Prolepsis Design Collaborative University of California, Berkeley 5629 Tolman Hall Berkeley, CA 94720-1670 gutierrkd@berkeley.edu > On Oct 18, 2017, at 9:00 AM, mike cole wrote: > > Not my pint, Kris... Julian?s. > Why not send around your paper? > Mike > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 8:40 AM Kris Gutierrez wrote: > >> Apropos your comment Mike, Fred Erickson and I wrote a relevant piece >> entitled ?Culture and Rigor? (Ed Researcher, 2002) that aligns with your >> point. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Oct 18, 2017, at 8:22 AM, mike cole wrote: >>> >>> Hi Julian & Huw- >>> >>> This seems just right to me: >>> >>> Every quantitative analysis/result demands a qualitative >>> framework/interpretation; and almost all, or anyway more than we think >>> qualitative research opens the possibility of quantitative models. >>> >>> And its interesting to think of quality as a "measure" of systems >>> properties. Sounds positively quantitative! >>> >>> mike >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:59 AM, Julian Williams < >>> julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> Lynda >>>> >>>> Just to say for the list that I appreciate your need for qualitative >>>> expertise, especially in a culture where perhaps 'quantitative >> researchers' >>>> dominate (here its the opposite: we have a struggle to keep some >>>> quantitative courses on our training programmes). >>>> >>>> Innumerate/illiterate may sound unkind and if so I apologise: no offence >>>> meant. >>>> >>>> I still sigh at the term 'qualitative researcher' and even more >>>> 'quantitative researcher', which seems often to imply a specialism and >> even >>>> a closing of doors to new work. Every quantitative analysis/result >> demands >>>> a qualitative framework/interpretation; and almost all, or anyway more >> than >>>> we think qualitative research opens the possibility of quantitative >> models. >>>> If a research identity is bound up with the division we close doors. >>>> >>>> Julian >>>> >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] >>>> on behalf of Kris Gutierrez [gutierkd@gmail.com] >>>> Sent: 18 October 2017 04:53 >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: job-CSU Sacramento >>>> >>>> Well said, Lynda! >>>> >>>> Kris D. Guti?rrez >>>> Carol Liu Professor >>>> Graduate School of Education >>>> Prolepsis Design Collaborative >>>> University of California, Berkeley >>>> 5629 Tolman Hall >>>> Berkeley, CA 94720-1670 >>>> gutierrkd@berkeley.edu >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Oct 17, 2017, at 8:30 PM, Stone, Lynda >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi again Julian?just saw this response. >>>>> >>>>> There was a reason for the qualitative emphasis and it had more to do >>>> with >>>>> competencies with >>>>> qualitative rather than lack of quantitative methodological knowledge?I >>>> am >>>>> assuming folks would have both. >>>>> However, I have discovered that those who attain there PhD?s here in >>>>> traditional human development programs (at least those who >>>>> apply for our positions) often have only a superficial knowledge of >>>>> qualitative research and no experience with it, as this is the case >>>>> with many of our faculty who are well trained to do laboratory >> research?- >>>>> The best approach, of course, is to generate an interesting research >>>>> question and then utilize whatever methods are appropriate for this >>>>> question. So the emphasis in the job call was to meet programmatic >> needs. >>>>> I hope this helps you understand why ?qualitative? was placed in the >>>>> requirement? My guess is that degrees in human development in your >>>>> setting might offer course work and practical experience in both >> methods, >>>>> as did my training. >>>>> >>>>> Sincerely, >>>>> -lynda >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Lynda Stone, Ph.D. >>>>> Professor >>>>> Child Development >>>>> CSUS/UC-Links After-school Program Director >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10/17/17, 2:35 PM, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of >>>> Julian >>>>> Williams" >>>> julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Lynda >>>>>> >>>>>> Always depressed to see researchers described as 'qualitative' >>>> presumably >>>>>> as opposed to 'quantitative' and therefore presumed to be innumerate, >>>>>> instead perhaps of being illiterate. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sigh. >>>>>> >>>>>> Julian >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 17 Oct 2017, at 21:06, Stone, Lynda >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello All! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here is a description of job opening for a qualitative researcher >>>>>>> grounded in human development and interested in educational settings? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Responsibilities include: >>>>>>> ? Teaching undergraduate and graduate courses in Child/Human >>>>>>> Development, specifically courses related to qualitative research >>>>>>> methodology and areas of interest; >>>>>>> ? Maintaining a rigorous program of research related to school- >> and/or >>>>>>> community-based qualitative research; >>>>>>> ? Supervising and sponsoring student scholarship; assisting with >>>>>>> advising and curriculum development/assessment; >>>>>>> ? Working collegially with other faculty; and >>>>>>> ? Contributing to service in the department, college, university, and >>>>>>> profession. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Required Qualifications >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? An earned Ph.D. in Child/Human Development, Applied Developmental >>>>>>> Psychology, Developmental Psychology, Developmental Science, >> Education, >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> Psychology, or an equivalent program. ABD candidates will be >>>>>>> considered. If ABD, all degree requirements must be completed by >> August >>>>>>> 2018 >>>>>>> ? Specialization in qualitative research methods with a strong >> emphasis >>>>>>> in developmental theory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Preferred Qualifications >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? Demonstrated leadership potential; >>>>>>> ? Interpersonal skills; >>>>>>> ? Ability to work with children, students, families, and communities >>>>>>> representing diverse populations from diverse backgrounds; >>>>>>> ? Demonstrated experience and effectiveness in college level, >>>>>>> undergraduate, and/or graduate level teaching; >>>>>>> ? Clearly defined interdisciplinary program of qualitative research >> and >>>>>>> publication focusing on children, adolescents, and/or young adults, >> or >>>>>>> demonstrated potential for establishing such a record; >>>>>>> ? Experience in educational settings and/or curriculum development. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lynda Stone, Ph.D. >>>>>>> Professor >>>>>>> Child Development >>>>>>> CSUS/UC-Links After-school Program Director >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: EricksonandGutierrez2002-CultRigandScieninEdRes.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 509635 bytes Desc: EricksonandGutierrez2002-CultRigandScieninEdRes.pdf Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171018/443818db/attachment-0001.pdf From gutierkd@gmail.com Wed Oct 18 11:58:00 2017 From: gutierkd@gmail.com (Kris Gutierrez) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:58:00 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: job-CSU Sacramento In-Reply-To: <1508351313943.98325@iped.uio.no> References: <262AA420-C566-4810-8A1D-2B1156CDA2D7@manchester.ac.uk> <9FC66B0A-837F-44EB-9A11-F4DE075A9DDB@gmail.com> <49BC6E1396C8F94B92715533ED4D20DC664DE32C@MBXP01.ds.man.ac.uk> <291EE73F-B9CB-412E-9135-7CBFCECF272E@gmail.com> <1508351313943.98325@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: let me try again Kris D. Guti?rrez Carol Liu Professor Graduate School of Education Prolepsis Design Collaborative University of California, Berkeley 5629 Tolman Hall Berkeley, CA 94720-1670 gutierrkd@berkeley.edu > On Oct 18, 2017, at 11:28 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > Thanks so much for your willingness to share, Kris. I think the attachment did not come through though, > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Kris Gutierrez > Sent: 18 October 2017 20:21 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: job-CSU Sacramento > > Mike/Julian thanks! Here is the piece, Alfredo. Agree with the points Julian and Lynda made. I think the 2002 article is still relevant but perhaps old news to this community. Attaching as requested. > > Some context relevant to the article: I had the real pleasure of co-designing and co-teaching the qualitative research courses strand for many years with Fred Erickson, a wise voice in these matters. We were both housed in the Social Research Methodology program at UCLA where the quant/qual discourse/debate was challenged in the overall program, in courses, and in our own training and work?no divisions encouraged or closing of doors, as Julian wrote. > > > (I?m currently teaching a course in Advanced Qualitative Methods here at Cal and will encourage students to view/engage this conversation.) Kris > > > > > > Kris D. Guti?rrez > Carol Liu Professor > Graduate School of Education > Prolepsis Design Collaborative > University of California, Berkeley > 5629 Tolman Hall > Berkeley, CA 94720-1670 > gutierrkd@berkeley.edu > > > > >> On Oct 18, 2017, at 9:00 AM, mike cole wrote: >> >> Not my pint, Kris... Julian?s. >> Why not send around your paper? >> Mike >> >> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 8:40 AM Kris Gutierrez wrote: >> >>> Apropos your comment Mike, Fred Erickson and I wrote a relevant piece >>> entitled ?Culture and Rigor? (Ed Researcher, 2002) that aligns with your >>> point. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Oct 18, 2017, at 8:22 AM, mike cole wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Julian & Huw- >>>> >>>> This seems just right to me: >>>> >>>> Every quantitative analysis/result demands a qualitative >>>> framework/interpretation; and almost all, or anyway more than we think >>>> qualitative research opens the possibility of quantitative models. >>>> >>>> And its interesting to think of quality as a "measure" of systems >>>> properties. Sounds positively quantitative! >>>> >>>> mike >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:59 AM, Julian Williams < >>>> julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Lynda >>>>> >>>>> Just to say for the list that I appreciate your need for qualitative >>>>> expertise, especially in a culture where perhaps 'quantitative >>> researchers' >>>>> dominate (here its the opposite: we have a struggle to keep some >>>>> quantitative courses on our training programmes). >>>>> >>>>> Innumerate/illiterate may sound unkind and if so I apologise: no offence >>>>> meant. >>>>> >>>>> I still sigh at the term 'qualitative researcher' and even more >>>>> 'quantitative researcher', which seems often to imply a specialism and >>> even >>>>> a closing of doors to new work. Every quantitative analysis/result >>> demands >>>>> a qualitative framework/interpretation; and almost all, or anyway more >>> than >>>>> we think qualitative research opens the possibility of quantitative >>> models. >>>>> If a research identity is bound up with the division we close doors. >>>>> >>>>> Julian >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] >>>>> on behalf of Kris Gutierrez [gutierkd@gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: 18 October 2017 04:53 >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: job-CSU Sacramento >>>>> >>>>> Well said, Lynda! >>>>> >>>>> Kris D. Guti?rrez >>>>> Carol Liu Professor >>>>> Graduate School of Education >>>>> Prolepsis Design Collaborative >>>>> University of California, Berkeley >>>>> 5629 Tolman Hall >>>>> Berkeley, CA 94720-1670 >>>>> gutierrkd@berkeley.edu >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 17, 2017, at 8:30 PM, Stone, Lynda >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi again Julian?just saw this response. >>>>>> >>>>>> There was a reason for the qualitative emphasis and it had more to do >>>>> with >>>>>> competencies with >>>>>> qualitative rather than lack of quantitative methodological knowledge?I >>>>> am >>>>>> assuming folks would have both. >>>>>> However, I have discovered that those who attain there PhD?s here in >>>>>> traditional human development programs (at least those who >>>>>> apply for our positions) often have only a superficial knowledge of >>>>>> qualitative research and no experience with it, as this is the case >>>>>> with many of our faculty who are well trained to do laboratory >>> research?- >>>>>> The best approach, of course, is to generate an interesting research >>>>>> question and then utilize whatever methods are appropriate for this >>>>>> question. So the emphasis in the job call was to meet programmatic >>> needs. >>>>>> I hope this helps you understand why ?qualitative? was placed in the >>>>>> requirement? My guess is that degrees in human development in your >>>>>> setting might offer course work and practical experience in both >>> methods, >>>>>> as did my training. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sincerely, >>>>>> -lynda >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Lynda Stone, Ph.D. >>>>>> Professor >>>>>> Child Development >>>>>> CSUS/UC-Links After-school Program Director >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/17/17, 2:35 PM, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of >>>>> Julian >>>>>> Williams" >>>>> julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Lynda >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Always depressed to see researchers described as 'qualitative' >>>>> presumably >>>>>>> as opposed to 'quantitative' and therefore presumed to be innumerate, >>>>>>> instead perhaps of being illiterate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sigh. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Julian >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 17 Oct 2017, at 21:06, Stone, Lynda >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello All! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here is a description of job opening for a qualitative researcher >>>>>>>> grounded in human development and interested in educational settings? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Responsibilities include: >>>>>>>> ? Teaching undergraduate and graduate courses in Child/Human >>>>>>>> Development, specifically courses related to qualitative research >>>>>>>> methodology and areas of interest; >>>>>>>> ? Maintaining a rigorous program of research related to school- >>> and/or >>>>>>>> community-based qualitative research; >>>>>>>> ? Supervising and sponsoring student scholarship; assisting with >>>>>>>> advising and curriculum development/assessment; >>>>>>>> ? Working collegially with other faculty; and >>>>>>>> ? Contributing to service in the department, college, university, and >>>>>>>> profession. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Required Qualifications >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? An earned Ph.D. in Child/Human Development, Applied Developmental >>>>>>>> Psychology, Developmental Psychology, Developmental Science, >>> Education, >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> Psychology, or an equivalent program. ABD candidates will be >>>>>>>> considered. If ABD, all degree requirements must be completed by >>> August >>>>>>>> 2018 >>>>>>>> ? Specialization in qualitative research methods with a strong >>> emphasis >>>>>>>> in developmental theory. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Preferred Qualifications >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? Demonstrated leadership potential; >>>>>>>> ? Interpersonal skills; >>>>>>>> ? Ability to work with children, students, families, and communities >>>>>>>> representing diverse populations from diverse backgrounds; >>>>>>>> ? Demonstrated experience and effectiveness in college level, >>>>>>>> undergraduate, and/or graduate level teaching; >>>>>>>> ? Clearly defined interdisciplinary program of qualitative research >>> and >>>>>>>> publication focusing on children, adolescents, and/or young adults, >>> or >>>>>>>> demonstrated potential for establishing such a record; >>>>>>>> ? Experience in educational settings and/or curriculum development. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Lynda Stone, Ph.D. >>>>>>>> Professor >>>>>>>> Child Development >>>>>>>> CSUS/UC-Links After-school Program Director >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> > From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 18 15:31:47 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 22:31:47 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Job Opening at the Institute for Learning Innovation In-Reply-To: <03da01d34860$3ffb2400$bff16c00$@freechoicelearning.org> References: <03da01d34860$3ffb2400$bff16c00$@freechoicelearning.org> Message-ID: Another job ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 3:27 PM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Job Opening at the Institute for Learning Innovation To: CC: Dear colleagues, This is a final reminder that the Institute for Learning Innovation is searching for a *Senior Research Associate *to join our team. Please see the job description below?and thanks in advance for your help sharing this notice with others. Best, Scott *Scott Pattison, PhD* Director of Research Institute for Learning Innovation scott.pattison@freechoicelearning.org *************************************** *Senior Research Associate* The Institute for Learning Innovation, a non-profit, Oregon-based free-choice learning research, practice, and policy organization ( http://www.instituteforlearninginnovation.org/), seeks a full-time senior project leader with strong quantitative and qualitative research skills and proven experience initiating, conducting, and reporting on education, learning, and social science research. Individuals with expertise and experience related to diversity, equity, and inclusion or culturally responsive and inclusive research practices are strongly encouraged to apply. Send: 1) letter of interest describing research experience, interests, professional goals, and evidence of success generating new work; 2) resume; and 3) names and contact information for three professional references to Dr. Scott Pattison, scott.pattison@freechoicelearning.org , by October 27, 2017. The Institute for Learning Innovation offers competitive salary rates, commensurate to experience level. _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Thu Oct 19 09:23:01 2017 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 16:23:01 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiAgUmU6INCe0YLQsjogUmU6IE9iamVjdCBvcmll?= =?utf-8?q?nted_activity_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <582cf11e-5ac1-906a-a9f8-6c747f765dfc@mira.net> <1405143041.776.1508019851227@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <1508190552093.73064@iped .uio.no> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <630D49CF-00CD-463E-A9B1-1E2924FCE197@uniandes.edu.co> Seems to me that if we?re going to talk about the details of Marx?s analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. The two have virtually opposite organizations; it?s clear that the order of presentation in Capital was not the order of analysis. Martin From ablunden@mira.net Thu Oct 19 15:40:57 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 09:40:57 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVu?= =?utf-8?q?ted_activity_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <630D49CF-00CD-463E-A9B1-1E2924FCE197@uniandes.edu.co> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <1508190552093.73064@iped .uio.no> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> <630D49CF-00CD-463E-A9B1-1E2924FCE197@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm Of course the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described. If this is done successfully, if the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a mere a priori construction. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > Seems to me that if we?re going to talk about the details of Marx?s analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. The two have virtually opposite organizations; it?s clear that the order of presentation in Capital was not the order of analysis. > > Martin > > > From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Thu Oct 19 17:05:57 2017 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 00:05:57 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVu?= =?utf-8?q?ted_activity_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <1508190552093.73064@iped .uio.no> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> <630D49CF-00CD-463E-A9B1-1E2924FCE197@uniandes.edu.co> <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> Message-ID: <6B0A96B7-3ACE-43E8-8CFC-3AD05568269A@uniandes.edu.co> Right, Marx was himself well aware of this difference. My point is that we have begin to talk about ?the start? of Marx?s analysis, and about its ?stages,? but these should not be equated with the order of the treatment in Capital. Martin On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm Of course the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described. If this is done successfully, if the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a mere a priori construction. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: Seems to me that if we?re going to talk about the details of Marx?s analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. The two have virtually opposite organizations; it?s clear that the order of presentation in Capital was not the order of analysis. Martin From ablunden@mira.net Thu Oct 19 18:04:16 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:04:16 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVu?= =?utf-8?q?ted_activity_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <6B0A96B7-3ACE-43E8-8CFC-3AD05568269A@uniandes.edu.co> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <1508190552093.73064@iped .uio.no> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> <630D49CF-00CD-463E-A9B1-1E2924FCE197@uniandes.edu.co> <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> <6B0A96B7-3ACE-43E8-8CFC-3AD05568269A@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: Marx addresses this in the passage well-known to CHATters, about abstract and concrete: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 20/10/2017 11:05 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > Right, Marx was himself well aware of this difference. My point is that we have begin to talk about ?the start? of Marx?s analysis, and about its ?stages,? but these should not be equated with the order of the treatment in Capital. > > Martin > > > > > On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm > > Of course the method of presentation must differ in form > from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the > material in detail, to analyse its different forms of > development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only > after this work is done, can the actual movement be > adequately described. If this is done successfully, if > the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as > in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a > mere a priori construction. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > Seems to me that if we?re going to talk about the details of Marx?s analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. The two have virtually opposite organizations; it?s clear that the order of presentation in Capital was not the order of analysis. > > Martin > > > > > From ablunden@mira.net Thu Oct 19 19:27:01 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:27:01 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVu?= =?utf-8?q?ted_activity_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <1508190552093.73064@iped .uio.no> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> <630D49CF-00CD-463E-A9B1-1E2924FCE197@uniandes.edu.co> <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> <6B0A96B7-3ACE-43E8-8CFC-3AD05568269A@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: I guess you are pressing, Martin, for a discussion of the very interesting topic of the interrelation between at least 4 different development processes here: (1) The relation between the order of an individual writer's cognition of a topic and the order in which they present their results to the reader (which Marx addressed in the 1873 Afterword); (2) The relation between the historical development of a science leading up to the formulation of a new key principle and the reconstruction of the science on the basis of this new principle whether by one or many writers (which Marx discusses in the 1857 passage, and which Thomas Kuhn talked about); (3) The relation between the individual's cognition of the subject matter and the science itself at the given stage of its development - which I think Marx took for granted, but Vygotsky certainly talked about; (4) the relation between the Logical unfolding of the concepts of the science and their historical evolution (something which Marx talks about a couple of pages later on in that 1857 passage). There has been controversy about this amongst Hegel scholars, but the outcome has been that Hegel does *not* claim that history recapitulates Logic, though it does from time to time. - it depends. I reviewed a book, "Marx's Capital and Hegel's Logic," in which 12 different writers all presented their view of the these relations. Every one had a different reading of (2) above, let alone the other relations. Interesting topic. Andy http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Capital+Logic_Review.pdf Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 20/10/2017 12:04 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > Marx addresses this in the passage well-known to CHATters, > about abstract and concrete: > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3 > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 20/10/2017 11:05 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: >> Right, Marx was himself well aware of this difference. My point is that we have begin to talk about ?the start? of Marx?s analysis, and about its ?stages,? but these should not be equated with the order of the treatment in Capital. >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: >> >> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm >> >> Of course the method of presentation must differ in form >> from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the >> material in detail, to analyse its different forms of >> development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only >> after this work is done, can the actual movement be >> adequately described. If this is done successfully, if >> the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as >> in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a >> mere a priori construction. >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: >> Seems to me that if we?re going to talk about the details of Marx?s analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. The two have virtually opposite organizations; it?s clear that the order of presentation in Capital was not the order of analysis. >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >> > > From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Fri Oct 20 01:59:12 2017 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 08:59:12 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVu?= =?utf-8?q?ted_activity_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <1508190552093.73064@iped .uio.no> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> <630D49CF-00CD-463E-A9B1-1E2924FCE197@uniandes.edu.co> <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> Message-ID: <1673495526.1144443.1508489952429@mail.yahoo.com> Handy reach and prompt answer is not my skill...but... What does this say? In Book I we analysed the phenomena which constitute the?process of capitalist productionas such, as the immediate productive process, with no regard for any of the secondary effects of outside influences. But this immediate process of production *does not exhaust the life span of capital*. It is supplemented in the actual world by the?process of circulation, which was the object of study in Book II. In the latter, namely in Part III, which treated the process of circulation as a medium for the process of social reproduction, it developed that the capitalist process of production taken *as a whole* represents a synthesis of the processes of production and circulation. Considering what this third book treats, it cannot confine itself to general reflection relative to this synthesis. On the contrary, it must locate and describe *the concrete forms which grow out of the*?*movements of capital as a whole*. In their actual movement capitals confront each other in such concrete shape, for which the form of capital in the immediate process of production, just as its form in the process of circulation, appear *only as special instances*. The various forms of capital, as evolved in this book, thus approach step by step the form which they assume on the surface of society, in the action of different capitals upon one another, in competition, and in the ordinary consciousness of the agents of production themselves. I wonder if xmca mechanism preserves Italics. And I think that the above could be related to this one from Andy himself : [The idea of producing for exchange being something essential outside of a world in which products are exchanged is to my mind something as curious as something being a hammer outside of a world in which there are nails. In preparing the conceptual foundation of? Capital, Marx wrote the Grundrisse and in the Introduction he makes clear that production, distribution, exchange and consumption form a unity, a whole, and have to be analysed as such: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc2 "Thus production, distribution, exchange and consumption form a regular syllogism; production is the generality, distribution and exchange the particularity, and consumption the singularity in which the whole is joined together."] Now what remains to be clarified is that if we are right in taking this 'only especial cases' as having their own separate 'units of analysis' as we take it as such taking into account that each unit of conceptual analysis in theorization necessarily should lead to a 'concrete universal' which is a whole proper which will not accept within itself other wholes dismantling itself of its unity/identity.? And in another debate not with you dears ,? 'is the commodity a unit?' of something or not. Did they not see this quote from Marx by Alfredo : "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as ?an immense accumulation of commodities,?[1] its *unit* being *a single commodity*. Our investigation must therefore begin with *the analysis of a commodity"* Do we demand clearer than that? Yes , not that THE commodity is a unit but A commodity IS a unit. A walnut could be a unit. A seed could be a unit of a harvest. And the point is here exactly . To Hegel and to Marx quite supporting Hegel in this respect and to the newer logic , theorization procedures does not begin a concrete as such but with an apparently concrete as the abstract because this newer logic sees things not in their discreteness but in their relationalities. Marx as against Hegel manipulates with material concrete procedures , individual , particular , ==> Universal to get the essence out of the phenomenon to ultimately reach a CONCEPT.? Then quite right with unit-concept (said above as taking a concrete as such) but in theorization not in material procedures.? unit-concept ; unit-act ; unit-word ; unit-thing , etc. each a unit of ...some relevant whole. [This analysis all leads to the *particular, productive concept of* 'surplus value'...] again 'concept' which has not been reached yet. Concepts are wholes as to their scientific definition maybe liable to be said to their Nature. I think this indicates fear of polluting phenomenological Notions and theoretical procedural features/moments with material instances. The capitalist does not usurp or appropriate the CONCEPT/NOTION of the 'surplus value' but the very substantial as in the form of a commodity no need to put an emphasis on it as for exchange , value not separable from use value. Money is in the bank but in theory the very money in the forms of coins , notes , etc. is a moment of accumulation of the supluses extra to redeployment in Factorial institutions. M,M' is also an obvious example of dealing with features/moments.? [maybe even the 'unit' of commodity that we would like to emulate is not generalisable.]? Was it not you deploying Marx's paradigms as leading to exploitation to the realm of education? And not 'a unit of commodity' but 'a commodity as the unit (abstract in theory) of the analysis of 'capital' as a concept , as a whole. People here might make mistakes , errors for which they soon apologize but not so confused as to take 'the unit of commodity'?? for the unit of analysis of perezhivanie!!? Thanks for all constructive help Haydi?? From: Andy Blunden To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Sent: Friday, 20 October 2017, 2:13:46 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm ? ? Of course the method of presentation must differ in form ? ? from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the ? ? material in detail, to analyse its different forms of ? ? development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only ? ? after this work is done, can the actual movement be ? ? adequately described. If this is done successfully, if ? ? the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as ? ? in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a ? ? mere a priori construction. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > Seems to me that if we?re going to talk about the details of Marx?s analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. The two have virtually opposite organizations; it?s clear that the order of presentation in Capital was not the order of analysis. > > Martin > > > From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Fri Oct 20 01:59:12 2017 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 08:59:12 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVu?= =?utf-8?q?ted_activity_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <1508190552093.73064@iped .uio.no> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> <630D49CF-00CD-463E-A9B1-1E2924FCE197@uniandes.edu.co> <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> Message-ID: <1673495526.1144443.1508489952429@mail.yahoo.com> Handy reach and prompt answer is not my skill...but... What does this say? In Book I we analysed the phenomena which constitute the?process of capitalist productionas such, as the immediate productive process, with no regard for any of the secondary effects of outside influences. But this immediate process of production *does not exhaust the life span of capital*. It is supplemented in the actual world by the?process of circulation, which was the object of study in Book II. In the latter, namely in Part III, which treated the process of circulation as a medium for the process of social reproduction, it developed that the capitalist process of production taken *as a whole* represents a synthesis of the processes of production and circulation. Considering what this third book treats, it cannot confine itself to general reflection relative to this synthesis. On the contrary, it must locate and describe *the concrete forms which grow out of the*?*movements of capital as a whole*. In their actual movement capitals confront each other in such concrete shape, for which the form of capital in the immediate process of production, just as its form in the process of circulation, appear *only as special instances*. The various forms of capital, as evolved in this book, thus approach step by step the form which they assume on the surface of society, in the action of different capitals upon one another, in competition, and in the ordinary consciousness of the agents of production themselves. I wonder if xmca mechanism preserves Italics. And I think that the above could be related to this one from Andy himself : [The idea of producing for exchange being something essential outside of a world in which products are exchanged is to my mind something as curious as something being a hammer outside of a world in which there are nails. In preparing the conceptual foundation of? Capital, Marx wrote the Grundrisse and in the Introduction he makes clear that production, distribution, exchange and consumption form a unity, a whole, and have to be analysed as such: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc2 "Thus production, distribution, exchange and consumption form a regular syllogism; production is the generality, distribution and exchange the particularity, and consumption the singularity in which the whole is joined together."] Now what remains to be clarified is that if we are right in taking this 'only especial cases' as having their own separate 'units of analysis' as we take it as such taking into account that each unit of conceptual analysis in theorization necessarily should lead to a 'concrete universal' which is a whole proper which will not accept within itself other wholes dismantling itself of its unity/identity.? And in another debate not with you dears ,? 'is the commodity a unit?' of something or not. Did they not see this quote from Marx by Alfredo : "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as ?an immense accumulation of commodities,?[1] its *unit* being *a single commodity*. Our investigation must therefore begin with *the analysis of a commodity"* Do we demand clearer than that? Yes , not that THE commodity is a unit but A commodity IS a unit. A walnut could be a unit. A seed could be a unit of a harvest. And the point is here exactly . To Hegel and to Marx quite supporting Hegel in this respect and to the newer logic , theorization procedures does not begin a concrete as such but with an apparently concrete as the abstract because this newer logic sees things not in their discreteness but in their relationalities. Marx as against Hegel manipulates with material concrete procedures , individual , particular , ==> Universal to get the essence out of the phenomenon to ultimately reach a CONCEPT.? Then quite right with unit-concept (said above as taking a concrete as such) but in theorization not in material procedures.? unit-concept ; unit-act ; unit-word ; unit-thing , etc. each a unit of ...some relevant whole. [This analysis all leads to the *particular, productive concept of* 'surplus value'...] again 'concept' which has not been reached yet. Concepts are wholes as to their scientific definition maybe liable to be said to their Nature. I think this indicates fear of polluting phenomenological Notions and theoretical procedural features/moments with material instances. The capitalist does not usurp or appropriate the CONCEPT/NOTION of the 'surplus value' but the very substantial as in the form of a commodity no need to put an emphasis on it as for exchange , value not separable from use value. Money is in the bank but in theory the very money in the forms of coins , notes , etc. is a moment of accumulation of the supluses extra to redeployment in Factorial institutions. M,M' is also an obvious example of dealing with features/moments.? [maybe even the 'unit' of commodity that we would like to emulate is not generalisable.]? Was it not you deploying Marx's paradigms as leading to exploitation to the realm of education? And not 'a unit of commodity' but 'a commodity as the unit (abstract in theory) of the analysis of 'capital' as a concept , as a whole. People here might make mistakes , errors for which they soon apologize but not so confused as to take 'the unit of commodity'?? for the unit of analysis of perezhivanie!!? Thanks for all constructive help Haydi?? From: Andy Blunden To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Sent: Friday, 20 October 2017, 2:13:46 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm ? ? Of course the method of presentation must differ in form ? ? from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the ? ? material in detail, to analyse its different forms of ? ? development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only ? ? after this work is done, can the actual movement be ? ? adequately described. If this is done successfully, if ? ? the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as ? ? in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a ? ? mere a priori construction. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > Seems to me that if we?re going to talk about the details of Marx?s analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. The two have virtually opposite organizations; it?s clear that the order of presentation in Capital was not the order of analysis. > > Martin > > > From alexander.surmava@yahoo.com Sat Oct 21 04:36:06 2017 From: alexander.surmava@yahoo.com (Alexander Surmava) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 11:36:06 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiAgUmU6INCe0YLQsjogUmU6INCe0YLQsjogUmU6IE9i?= =?utf-8?q?ject_oriented_activity_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <6B0A96B7-3ACE-43E8-8CFC-3AD05568269A@uniandes.edu.co> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <1508190552093.73064@iped .uio.no> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> <630D49CF-00CD-463E-A9B1-1E2924FCE197@uniandes.edu.co> <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> <6B0A96B7-3ACE-43E8-8CFC-3AD05568269A@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: <919379338.1678471.1508585766999@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Martin, I think that if we're going to discuss the method ofMarx, then it is better to do it discussing his most mature work. That is evidently"Das Kapital" and Ilyenkov's monograph "Dialectics of theabstract and concrete in theoretical thinking". I am aware that there is apoint of view that the position of Marx as a humanist was adequately presentedin Gr?ndrisse, whereas the humanistic core of Marx's theory was allegedly lostin ?Das Kapital?. Accordingly, Marxism is better to study with the help of Gr?ndrisse,and not with the help of ?Das Kapital?. Along with Ilyenkov I do not share this view. I'm afraid that thediscussion of this topic would take us too far from our psychological themes. Ithink that we should not get stuck in discussing the order of"steps", but immediately put our foot on the first "step"so that after that try to rise from it to the second, and so on ... ?Taking into accountmy not young age, it seems to me that at least for me, it's time to move onfrom the discussion of the method to the discussion of the subject, from thepreparation to thinking, to the thinking as such. Especially because the Methodcan not be studied before and regardless of the study of the very subject. Perhapsthis seems paradoxical, but it is a paradox only for those who are not familiarwith the dialectic of Spinoza and Marx. ?Meanwhile, insteadof discussing the question - what is activity, or what is the psyche - wecontinue to carry water in a sieve, discussing the singular or plural of theterm activity. Without a doubt, this topic is very useful for translators fromRussian (or German) language to English, but theoretically it is not veryinformative. And besides, we are convinced that Andy Blunden completelyexhausted this topic a few years ago. ?Much moreinteresting would be to discuss the question: what is the justification todeclare Vygotsky the founder of activity theory. Where, in any of his works,Vygotsky introduces the concept of activity, not just uses the term ?activity?in the theoretical contexts in which it is used habitually by idealisticpsychology. ?The activity (or activities) of consciousness?, ?the activity (oractivities) of mental functions?, ?speech activity (or activities)?, the concreteactivities of the personality?- all this has nothing to do with object-orientedactivity, with Spinoza and Marx. ?It seems to methat our main mistake is that we are discussing the subtleties of understandingthe categories of activity by Vygotsky and Leontyev, whereas we need somethingdifferent. It is necessary to try to formulate OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of theactivity, proceeding from THE REAL NEED OF THE PRACTICE OF DEMOCRATIC PEDAGOGY. It is impossibleto understand activity based on Vygotsky's ideas, because there was no suchtheoretical category in his theoretical system of views. AN Leontiev introducesa category of object-oriented activity into psychology, but his theory is oflittle use for solving practical problems too, for saying ?A?, Leontyev neversaid ?B?. Having proposed the principle of activity as the universal basis ofthe psychological theory, its germ cell AN Leontiev did not go further failingto concretize this correctly chosen abstract category. Once again, fromthe hobby groupof lovers of Vygotsky, with his "?ultural-?istorical Psychology" andAN Leontyev with his "Psychological Theory of Activity" we all haveto become community of researchers developing fundamentally new approaches toeducation, based on dialectical, revolutionary method of Marx. For therealization of this dream, it is necessary to begin not so much - to learn tolisten to each other... :-) Sincerely, Sasha ??: Martin John Packer ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" ??????????: ???????, 20 ??????? 2017 3:08 ????: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Right, Marx was himself well aware of this difference. My point is that we have begin to talk about ?the start? of Marx?s analysis, and about its ?stages,? but these should not be equated with the order of the treatment in Capital. Martin On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm ? Of course the method of presentation must differ in form ? from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the ? material in detail, to analyse its different forms of ? development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only ? after this work is done, can the actual movement be ? adequately described. If this is done successfully, if ? the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as ? in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a ? mere a priori construction. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: Seems to me that if we?re going to talk about the details of Marx?s analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. The two have virtually opposite organizations; it?s clear that the order of presentation in Capital was not the order of analysis. Martin From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 23 09:32:49 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:32:49 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Reminder: Join Dr. Fulani at a Rally Against NYCHA - sign up if you haven't yet In-Reply-To: <1129210149067.1102100306453.46231.0.371220JL.1002@scheduler.constantcontact.com> References: <1129210149067.1102100306453.46231.0.371220JL.1002@scheduler.constantcontact.com> Message-ID: For all you social movement mavens who happen to be in the area tomorrow....... :-) mike ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dr. Lenora Fulani & the Committee for Independent Community Action (CICA) Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 9:21 AM Subject: Reminder: Join Dr. Fulani at a Rally Against NYCHA - sign up if you haven't yet To: lchcmike@gmail.com Tuesday, October 24 at 8:00 a.m. CICA Members and Supporters Call to Action - Tuesday, October 24, 8:00 am ? Tomorrow morning ? Tuesday, October 24th Dr. Lenora Fulani and CICA will be holding a rally outside The New School at 8 am (66 W. 12th Street.) Inside a panel of ?experts? will be discussing public housing. Let?s make sure these ?experts? learn the truth about NYCHA?s NextGen plan and its impact on the poor. Join us! Wear your red T-shirt! Location The New School Alvin Johnson/J.M. Kaplan Hall 66 West 12th Street between Fifth & Sixth Avenues Trains F, M, L to 14 St/6 Av 1, 2, 3 to 14 St 4, 5, 6, N, Q, R, W to 14 St-Union Sq RSVP NYCHA Rally at the New School LOCATION Alvin Johnson, J.M. Kaplan Hall, 66 West 12th Street DATE AND TIME 10/24/17 8:00am - 10/24/17 10:00am I'll be there! Maybe I can't make it Sincerely, Elsa Dial edial@allstars.org 212-941-9400 x429 [image: Facebook] Committee for Independent Community Action (CICA) Committee for Independent Community Action (CICA) | 543 West 42nd Street , New York, NY 10036 Unsubscribe lchcmike@gmail.com Update Profile | About our service provider Sent by edial@allstars.org in collaboration with [image: Trusted Email from Constant Contact - Try it FREE today.] Try it free today From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Wed Oct 25 05:03:34 2017 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 12:03:34 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVu?= =?utf-8?q?ted_activity_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <919379338.1678471.1508585766999@mail.yahoo.com> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <1508190552093.73064@iped .uio.no> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> <630D49CF-00CD-463E-A9B1-1E2924FCE197@uniandes.edu.co> <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> <6B0A96B7-3ACE-43E8-8CFC-3AD05568269A@uniandes.edu.co>, <919379338.1678471.1508585766999@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1508933013877.70037@iped.uio.no> Dear Sasha, all, apologies for late response, as we've had some health issues at home that fortunately are now dissipating but which have limited participation anywhere else than home life. The real need of democratic pedagogy. That sounds like a concrete aspect to begin moving on to what we had hoped at the beginning of this conversation: how is this all gonna be of practical (real) relevance to us and not only armchair discussion. So, in what sense is this 'real,' and is this a 'need'? (I am not addressing Sasha alone, I am addressing any and everyone) Alfredo ________________________________ From: Alexander Surmava Sent: 21 October 2017 13:36 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole; Alfredo Jornet Gil; ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? Subject: ???: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Dear Martin, I think that if we're going to discuss the method of Marx, then it is better to do it discussing his most mature work. That is evidently "Das Kapital" and Ilyenkov's monograph "Dialectics of the abstract and concrete in theoretical thinking". I am aware that there is a point of view that the position of Marx as a humanist was adequately presented in Gr?ndrisse, whereas the humanistic core of Marx's theory was allegedly lost in ?Das Kapital?. Accordingly, Marxism is better to study with the help of Gr?ndrisse, and not with the help of ?Das Kapital?. Along with Ilyenkov I do not share this view. I'm afraid that the discussion of this topic would take us too far from our psychological themes. I think that we should not get stuck in discussing the order of "steps", but immediately put our foot on the first "step" so that after that try to rise from it to the second, and so on ... Taking into account my not young age, it seems to me that at least for me, it's time to move on from the discussion of the method to the discussion of the subject, from the preparation to thinking, to the thinking as such. Especially because the Method can not be studied before and regardless of the study of the very subject. Perhaps this seems paradoxical, but it is a paradox only for those who are not familiar with the dialectic of Spinoza and Marx. Meanwhile, instead of discussing the question - what is activity, or what is the psyche - we continue to carry water in a sieve, discussing the singular or plural of the term activity. Without a doubt, this topic is very useful for translators from Russian (or German) language to English, but theoretically it is not very informative. And besides, we are convinced that Andy Blunden completely exhausted this topic a few years ago. Much more interesting would be to discuss the question: what is the justification to declare Vygotsky the founder of activity theory. Where, in any of his works, Vygotsky introduces the concept of activity, not just uses the term ?activity? in the theoretical contexts in which it is used habitually by idealistic psychology. ?The activity (or activities) of consciousness?, ?the activity (or activities) of mental functions?, ?speech activity (or activities)?, the concrete activities of the personality?- all this has nothing to do with object-oriented activity, with Spinoza and Marx. It seems to me that our main mistake is that we are discussing the subtleties of understanding the categories of activity by Vygotsky and Leontyev, whereas we need something different. It is necessary to try to formulate OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of the activity, proceeding from THE REAL NEED OF THE PRACTICE OF DEMOCRATIC PEDAGOGY. It is impossible to understand activity based on Vygotsky's ideas, because there was no such theoretical category in his theoretical system of views. AN Leontiev introduces a category of object-oriented activity into psychology, but his theory is of little use for solving practical problems too, for saying ?A?, Leontyev never said ?B?. Having proposed the principle of activity as the universal basis of the psychological theory, its germ cell AN Leontiev did not go further failing to concretize this correctly chosen abstract category. Once again, from the hobby group of lovers of Vygotsky, with his "?ultural-?istorical Psychology" and AN Leontyev with his "Psychological Theory of Activity" we all have to become community of researchers developing fundamentally new approaches to education, based on dialectical, revolutionary method of Marx. For the realization of this dream, it is necessary to begin not so much - to learn to listen to each other... :-) Sincerely, Sasha ________________________________ ??: Martin John Packer ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" ??????????: ???????, 20 ??????? 2017 3:08 ????: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Right, Marx was himself well aware of this difference. My point is that we have begin to talk about ?the start? of Marx?s analysis, and about its ?stages,? but these should not be equated with the order of the treatment in Capital. Martin On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden >> wrote: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm Of course the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described. If this is done successfully, if the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a mere a priori construction. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: Seems to me that if we?re going to talk about the details of Marx?s analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. The two have virtually opposite organizations; it?s clear that the order of presentation in Capital was not the order of analysis. Martin From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 25 08:20:21 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 08:20:21 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Full-time faculty position in Rome, Italy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A job in Europe. mike ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Paola Castelli Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 1:47 AM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Full-time faculty position in Rome, Italy To: "cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org" Please share with anyone who may be interested! John Cabot University (JCU), an accredited American liberal arts university in Rome, Italy, invites applications for an open-rank (assistant or associate) full-time tenure-track faculty position in Psychology. The initial appointment is for two years with the possibility of tenure. We seek candidates with a Ph.D. in Psychology, demonstrated excellence in teaching and research, and commitment to academic service and program development. Full job ad available here: http://www.johncabot.edu/employment-opportunities/teaching.aspx ******************** Paola Castelli, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Psychology Department of Economics and Social Sciences John Cabot University Via della Lungara, 233 00165 Rome, Italy _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Wed Oct 25 12:19:39 2017 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:19:39 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVu?= =?utf-8?q?ted_activity_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <1508933013877.70037@iped.uio.no> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <1508190552093.73064@iped .uio.no> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> <630D49CF-00CD-463E-A9B1-1E2924FCE197@uniandes.edu.co> <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> <6B0A96B7-3ACE-43E8-8CFC-3AD05568269A@uniandes.edu.co> <919379338.1678471.1508585766999@mail.yahoo.com> <1508933013877.70037@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <1700408066.6258290.1508959180079@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Alfredo,all, First I hope there'll always be relief and rest and comfort at home and at everybody's so that all of us can feel happy and hopeful! Second the attached could get us closer to the key as defined as concrete in democratic pedagogy. So far there must have appeared having gone into extremes. Experience has shown that sticking to specific ideas as the definite , the inalienable , the merely genuine legitimate , the uncompromisable , the MY ever truth , even from the side of the most learned ones , could in all evidence harm our discussions and lead to dogma-nourishing. Marx also explicitly advises more and more reading and delving into matters. Providing transitional space will smack of rationality wit and wisdom not ever-drawbacks , surrender , self-deceit or a trait to one's cause.? What you have so far referred to on many occasions , that is , what will come out of all this process of negotiation , discussion , polemic quarreling , etc. is , I think , already at hand. Even at the most advanced countries the macrosocial planning and programming on the part of the Global Capital has put all educational practitioners at a defensive and a stop-to-be position and at risk of regression , drawback and humiliation and losing of all that's been victorious to this point of time in the hope of capturing and invading even our remotest strongholds. It's not that we can summarize it in just non-rote learning or a ban on monopolistic aristocratic advantageous education or being cautious and on the alert of non-allowance of giving permit to learners in theory devoid of practice or the positivistic preoccupation and dealing with factual procedures or statistical numerical bemusing or qual-free quantification in non-acceptance of plausible conceptualizaion and theorization. Our in-class tracking should have a glance at and be quite in harmony with what all combatants of the large globe bear on their shoulders so that peace , all-embracing equality , brotherhood , non-violence , tolerance and co-existence in exaltation and meritocracy are obtained ACTUALLY. Thanks! Best Haydi? ? From: Alfredo Jornet Gil To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" ; Mike Cole ; ivan-dgf ; Martin John Packer ; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? ; Alexander Surmava Sent: Wednesday, 25 October 2017, 15:33:42 Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication #yiv2527927673 #yiv2527927673 -- P {margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;}#yiv2527927673 Dear Sasha, all,? apologies for late response, as we've had some health issues at?home that fortunately?are now dissipating but which have limited participation anywhere else than home life.? The real need of democratic pedagogy. That sounds like a concrete aspect to begin moving on to what we had hoped at the beginning of this conversation: how is this all gonna be of practical (real) relevance to us and not only armchair discussion. So,?in what sense is this 'real,' and is this a 'need'? (I am not addressing Sasha alone, I am addressing any and everyone)? Alfredo ? From: Alexander Surmava Sent: 21 October 2017 13:36 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole; Alfredo Jornet Gil; ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? Subject: ???: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication?Dear Martin,I think that if we're going to discuss the method of Marx, then it is better to do it discussing his most mature work. That is evidently "Das Kapital" and Ilyenkov's monograph "Dialectics of the abstract and concrete in theoretical thinking". I am aware that there is a point of view that the position of Marx as a humanist was adequately presented in Gr?ndrisse, whereas the humanistic core of Marx's theory was allegedly lost in ?Das Kapital?. Accordingly, Marxism is better to study with the help of Gr?ndrisse, and not with the help of ?Das Kapital?. Along with Ilyenkov I do not share this view.I'm afraid that the discussion of this topic would take us too far from our psychological themes. I think that we should not get stuck in discussing the order of "steps", but immediately put our foot on the first "step" so that after that try to rise from it to the second, and so on ...?Taking into account my not young age, it seems to me that at least for me, it's time to move on from the discussion of the method to the discussion of the subject, from the preparation to thinking, to the thinking as such. Especially because the Method can not be studied before and regardless of the study of the very subject. Perhaps this seems paradoxical, but it is a paradox only for those who are not familiar with the dialectic of Spinoza and Marx.?Meanwhile, instead of discussing the question - what is activity, or what is the psyche - we continue to carry water in a sieve, discussing the singular or plural of the term activity. Without a doubt, this topic is very useful for translators from Russian (or German) language to English, but theoretically it is not very informative. And besides, we are convinced that Andy Blunden completely exhausted this topic a few years ago.?Much more interesting would be to discuss the question: what is the justification to declare Vygotsky the founder of activity theory. Where, in any of his works, Vygotsky introduces the concept of activity, not just uses the term ?activity? in the theoretical contexts in which it is used habitually by idealistic psychology. ?The activity (or activities) of consciousness?, ?the activity (or activities) of mental functions?, ?speech activity (or activities)?, the concrete activities of the personality?- all this has nothing to do with object-oriented activity, with Spinoza and Marx.?It seems to me that our main mistake is that we are discussing the subtleties of understanding the categories of activity by Vygotsky and Leontyev, whereas we need something different. It is necessary to try to formulate OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of the activity, proceeding from THE REAL NEED OF THE PRACTICE OF DEMOCRATIC PEDAGOGY.It is impossible to understand activity based on Vygotsky's ideas, because there was no such theoretical category in his theoretical system of views. AN Leontiev introduces a category of object-oriented activity into psychology, but his theory is of little use for solving practical problems too, for saying ?A?, Leontyev never said ?B?. Having proposed the principle of activity as the universal basis of the psychological theory, its germ cell AN Leontiev did not go further failing to concretize this correctly chosen abstract category.Once again, from thehobby group of lovers of Vygotsky, with his "?ultural-?istorical Psychology" and AN Leontyev with his "Psychological Theory of Activity" we all have to become community of researchers developing fundamentally new approaches to education, based on dialectical, revolutionary method of Marx.For the realization of this dream, it is necessary to begin not so much - to learn to listen to each other... :-)Sincerely,Sasha ??: Martin John Packer ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" ??????????: ???????, 20 ??????? 2017 3:08 ????: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Right, Marx was himself well aware of this difference. My point is that we have begin to talk about ?the start? of Marx?s analysis, and about its ?stages,? but these should not be equated with the order of the treatment in Capital. Martin On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm ? Of course the method of presentation must differ in form ? from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the ? material in detail, to analyse its different forms of ? development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only ? after this work is done, can the actual movement be ? adequately described. If this is done successfully, if ? the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as ? in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a ? mere a priori construction. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: Seems to me that if we?re going to talk about the details of Marx?s analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. The two have virtually opposite organizations; it?s clear that the order of presentation in Capital was not the order of analysis. Martin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: The_Generation_of_Higher_Mental_Function.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 172374 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20171025/4db7847f/attachment.pdf From alexander.surmava@yahoo.com Wed Oct 25 16:13:22 2017 From: alexander.surmava@yahoo.com (Alexander Surmava) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 23:13:22 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiAgUmU6INCe0YLQsjogUmU6INCe0YLQsjogUmU6IE9i?= =?utf-8?q?ject_oriented_activity_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <1508933013877.70037@iped.uio.no> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <1508190552093.73064@iped .uio.no> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> <630D49CF-00CD-463E-A9B1-1E2924FCE197@uniandes.edu.co> <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> <6B0A96B7-3ACE-43E8-8CFC-3AD05568269A@uniandes.edu.co> <919379338.1678471.1508585766999@mail.yahoo.com> <1508933013877.70037@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <1311730113.6439834.1508973202950@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Alfredo, thank you for your very accurate reaction. You definitely noticed the main thing.? Today, in the era of globalization and developed technologies, the class antagonism between exploited people and their exploiters, between capital and wage labor, assumes the appearance of the opposite between different ethnic groups and cultures. Capital itself has always been a global phenomenon, and a class of capitalists - a cosmopolitan class. Putting military overcoats on workers and sending them to fight and to kill each other under nationalist slogans, they continued to cooperate with their exploitation colleagues, somehow continuing to receive dividends from their enterprises located on the territory of their "enemy."? Today Putin's friends and henchmen who curse the "insidious West" take their capitals to this West, buy property there, send their children to study there and go there themselves to rest and be treated. And today Mr. Poroshenko - the president of the country that was subjected to the aggression of the neighboring state, owns chocolate factories located on the territory of this country. In Russia, and in Western Europe, and in the United States, the policy of the ruling classes is based today on inciting against each other the working people of different ethnic groups and confessions, on their juxtaposition of each other as superior and second-class creatures. And as an ideological justification of the enmity incited by the ruling class towards working people of a different skin color, working people speaking a different language and praying to other gods, public consciousness is infected with totally false ideas constructed allegedly on a scientific basis. All this is not new. One hundred years ago, the dominant ideology rested on undisguised racism. Today, the same task is being solved by more sophisticated means, appealing to so-called "cultural" differences. Although the old ideology appealing to biological differences has not disappeared. Only today it is covered by a new, molecular-genetic argumentation, an appeal not only to livestock farming, but also to the "psychology of culture". It is possible to unmask this bourgeois lie, not only in words but also in deeds, if we can understand that human development is not the ability of individuals to experience (perejivat?) the meaning of words, but to be genuine subjects of object-oriented activity, the subjects of labor. If we stay on Vygotsky's theoretical positions, which believed that the human psyche begins with acts of sensation that thinking is just a verbal "generalization" of the material that our senses deliver to us, then any wretched ideologist, with a well-suspended language, will seem to us the owner of perfect wisdom, whereas a worker or a peasant doing his own work, but not possessing the skill of ideological verbosity, will look something inferior. If someone is shocked by such an evaluation of Vygotsky's theory, open his "Thinking and speach" and reread this key paragraph. "It has been said that the dialectical leap is not only a transition from matter that is incapable of sensation to matter that is capable of sensation, but a transition from sensation to thought. This implies that reality is reflected in consciousness in a qualitatively different way in thinking than it is in immediate sensation. This qualitative difference is primarily a function of a generalized reflection of reality. Therefore, generalization in word meaning is an act of thinking in the true sense of the word. At the same time, however, meaning is an inseparable part of the word; it belongs not only to the domain of thought but to the domain of speech. A word without meaning is not a word, but an empty sound. A word without meaning no longer belongs to the domain of speech. One cannot say of word meaning what we said earlier of the elements of the word taken separately. Is word meaning speech or is it thought? It is both at one and the same time; it is a unit of verbal thinking. It is obvious, then, that our method must be that of semantic analysis. Our method must rely on the analysts of the meaningful aspect of speech; it must be a method for studying verbal meaning. We can reasonably anticipate that this method will produce answers to our questions concerning the relationship between thinking and speech because this relationship is already contained in the unit of analysis. In studying the function, structure, and development of this unit, we will come to understand a great deal that is of direct relevance to the problem of the relationship of thinking to speech and to the nature of verbal thinking." Obviously, such an "understanding" of thinking has not the slightest relation to either Spinozism or Marxism. It is a naive attempt to combine?eclectically the old ideas of empirical psychology with the school textbook of formal logic. (Of course, I understand that this paragraph needs more detailed theoretical analysis. And I will not slow down this analysis in the very near future.?In the meantime, I only note that Vygotsky's assertion that "generalization is a verbal act of thought" is a maximally aphoristic expression of his idealistic position. For us, as for the materialists, the generalization is a practical act and its instrument is the instrument of labor. And the initial and universal instrument of generalization is not a sign, but an instrument of labor. So the ax is a means of generalizing the properties of wood. The ax is, in the same time, a means of analyzing all the same wood. All this is obvious, looking through the optics of Spinoza-Ilyenkov, that is, simply a Marxist definition of ideality.) Theoretical conclusions made by Vygotsky from the results of Luria's trip to Uzbekistan logically follow from the above. The Uzbek illiterate peasant, not from school textbooks, but from his own labor experience knowing how the earth, aryk, water, hoe and melon are connected, and therefore refusing to produce meaningless formal logical operations with words denoting these things, is declared a primitive thinking by "complexes". Simultaneously, any school crap who knows how to pronounce definitions from his textbook and familiar with the melon only when it is bought, washed and cut by his mommy, is declared the bearer of scientific consciousness. Only in this way can we, as psychologists and teachers, come to the value of instruments of labor, not only for the distribution of material wealth, but also for the distribution of the spiritual wealth, for the distribution of the ability to think, for the distribution of culture. Only in this way can we approach the Marxist definition of culture as the totality of the means of its object-oriented activity accumulated by humankind the means of its labor. Only on the path of such based on idea of object-oriented activity understanding of man we will be able to get out of the deadlock of the semiotic, with its symbolic arbitrariness. Vygotsky's merit is that he was the first who seriously set the task of creating a Marxist psychology and his merit can be considered that the first real step in this direction was made by his friend and student AN Leontiev.Our task is to continue their mission. Sasha ??: Alfredo Jornet Gil ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" ; Mike Cole ; ivan-dgf ; Martin John Packer ; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? ; Alexander Surmava ??????????: ?????, 25 ??????? 2017 15:03 ????: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication #yiv0081188988 #yiv0081188988 -- P {margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;}#yiv0081188988 Dear Sasha, all,? apologies for late response, as we've had some health issues at?home that fortunately?are now dissipating but which have limited participation anywhere else than home life.? The real need of democratic pedagogy. That sounds like a concrete aspect to begin moving on to what we had hoped at the beginning of this conversation: how is this all gonna be of practical (real) relevance to us and not only armchair discussion. So,?in what sense is this 'real,' and is this a 'need'? (I am not addressing Sasha alone, I am addressing any and everyone)? Alfredo ? From: Alexander Surmava Sent: 21 October 2017 13:36 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole; Alfredo Jornet Gil; ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? Subject: ???: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication?Dear Martin,I think that if we're going to discuss the method of Marx, then it is better to do it discussing his most mature work. That is evidently "Das Kapital" and Ilyenkov's monograph "Dialectics of the abstract and concrete in theoretical thinking". I am aware that there is a point of view that the position of Marx as a humanist was adequately presented in Gr?ndrisse, whereas the humanistic core of Marx's theory was allegedly lost in ?Das Kapital?. Accordingly, Marxism is better to study with the help of Gr?ndrisse, and not with the help of ?Das Kapital?. Along with Ilyenkov I do not share this view.I'm afraid that the discussion of this topic would take us too far from our psychological themes. I think that we should not get stuck in discussing the order of "steps", but immediately put our foot on the first "step" so that after that try to rise from it to the second, and so on ...?Taking into account my not young age, it seems to me that at least for me, it's time to move on from the discussion of the method to the discussion of the subject, from the preparation to thinking, to the thinking as such. Especially because the Method can not be studied before and regardless of the study of the very subject. Perhaps this seems paradoxical, but it is a paradox only for those who are not familiar with the dialectic of Spinoza and Marx.?Meanwhile, instead of discussing the question - what is activity, or what is the psyche - we continue to carry water in a sieve, discussing the singular or plural of the term activity. Without a doubt, this topic is very useful for translators from Russian (or German) language to English, but theoretically it is not very informative. And besides, we are convinced that Andy Blunden completely exhausted this topic a few years ago.?Much more interesting would be to discuss the question: what is the justification to declare Vygotsky the founder of activity theory. Where, in any of his works, Vygotsky introduces the concept of activity, not just uses the term ?activity? in the theoretical contexts in which it is used habitually by idealistic psychology. ?The activity (or activities) of consciousness?, ?the activity (or activities) of mental functions?, ?speech activity (or activities)?, the concrete activities of the personality?- all this has nothing to do with object-oriented activity, with Spinoza and Marx.?It seems to me that our main mistake is that we are discussing the subtleties of understanding the categories of activity by Vygotsky and Leontyev, whereas we need something different. It is necessary to try to formulate OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of the activity, proceeding from THE REAL NEED OF THE PRACTICE OF DEMOCRATIC PEDAGOGY.It is impossible to understand activity based on Vygotsky's ideas, because there was no such theoretical category in his theoretical system of views. AN Leontiev introduces a category of object-oriented activity into psychology, but his theory is of little use for solving practical problems too, for saying ?A?, Leontyev never said ?B?. Having proposed the principle of activity as the universal basis of the psychological theory, its germ cell AN Leontiev did not go further failing to concretize this correctly chosen abstract category.Once again, from thehobby group of lovers of Vygotsky, with his "?ultural-?istorical Psychology" and AN Leontyev with his "Psychological Theory of Activity" we all have to become community of researchers developing fundamentally new approaches to education, based on dialectical, revolutionary method of Marx.For the realization of this dream, it is necessary to begin not so much - to learn to listen to each other... :-)Sincerely,Sasha ??: Martin John Packer ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" ??????????: ???????, 20 ??????? 2017 3:08 ????: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Right, Marx was himself well aware of this difference. My point is that we have begin to talk about ?the start? of Marx?s analysis, and about its ?stages,? but these should not be equated with the order of the treatment in Capital. Martin On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm ? Of course the method of presentation must differ in form ? from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the ? material in detail, to analyse its different forms of ? development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only ? after this work is done, can the actual movement be ? adequately described. If this is done successfully, if ? the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as ? in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a ? mere a priori construction. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: Seems to me that if we?re going to talk about the details of Marx?s analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. The two have virtually opposite organizations; it?s clear that the order of presentation in Capital was not the order of analysis. Martin From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 25 16:28:32 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:28:32 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re OliverSachs Message-ID: Sachs was a great champion of Luria's and a fellow traveler in romantic science. From: Frank Kessel Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 4:19 PM Subject: Fwd: NYTimes: Oliver Sacks, a Composer and His Last Work A life fully lived (till the end) . . . Here's a story from The New York Times that I thought you'd find interesting: I am grateful to have been present at the creation of the book of scientific essays he would not live to see. Read More... Sent from my iPhone From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 25 17:08:19 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 17:08:19 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiAgUmU6INCe0YLQsjogUmU6INCe0YLQsjogUmU6?= =?utf-8?q?_Object_oriented_activity_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <1311730113.6439834.1508973202950@mail.yahoo.com> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> <630D49CF-00CD-463E-A9B1-1E2924FCE197@uniandes.edu.co> <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> <6B0A96B7-3ACE-43E8-8CFC-3AD05568269A@uniandes.edu.co> <919379338.1678471.1508585766999@mail.yahoo.com> <1508933013877.70037@iped.uio.no> <1311730113.6439834.1508973202950@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Sasha- I found that a very interesting account but it would help me to understand you better if you filled in between here: Obviously, such an "understanding" of thinking has not the slightest relation to either Spinozism or Marxism. It is a naive attempt to combine eclectically the old ideas of empirical psychology with the school textbook of formal logic. And Here: (Of course, I understand that this paragraph needs more detailed theoretical analysis. And I will not slow down this analysis in the very near future. In the meantime, Your lousy evaluation of LSV above does not coincide with mine, but then I am not a dialectical philosopher! Is the work of Peeter Tulviste relevant here? Although a student of Luria's he was educated in Moscow in an environment dominated institutionally by Leontiev. It speaks of the historical emergence of societies with schools which submitted children to 15,000 hours of practice in "the basics" of modern forms of production. In addition to being multi-modal, how would you amend Tulviste's formulation? I found an article I had not seen before at http://dspace.ut.ee/bitstream/handle/10062/29169/474_problemy.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y#page=4 mike On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Alexander Surmava < alexander.surmava@yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Alfredo, > > thank you for your very accurate reaction. You definitely noticed the main > thing. > > Today, in the era of globalization and developed technologies, the class > antagonism between exploited people and their exploiters, between capital > and wage labor, assumes the appearance of the opposite between different > ethnic groups and cultures. Capital itself has always been a global > phenomenon, and a class of capitalists - a cosmopolitan class. Putting > military overcoats on workers and sending them to fight and to kill each > other under nationalist slogans, they continued to cooperate with their > exploitation colleagues, somehow continuing to receive dividends from their > enterprises located on the territory of their "enemy." > > Today Putin's friends and henchmen who curse the "insidious West" take > their capitals to this West, buy property there, send their children to > study there and go there themselves to rest and be treated. And today Mr. > Poroshenko - the president of the country that was subjected to the > aggression of the neighboring state, owns chocolate factories located on > the territory of this country. > > In Russia, and in Western Europe, and in the United States, the policy of > the ruling classes is based today on inciting against each other the > working people of different ethnic groups and confessions, on their > juxtaposition of each other as superior and second-class creatures. > > And as an ideological justification of the enmity incited by the ruling > class towards working people of a different skin color, working people > speaking a different language and praying to other gods, public > consciousness is infected with totally false ideas constructed allegedly on > a scientific basis. All this is not new. One hundred years ago, the > dominant ideology rested on undisguised racism. Today, the same task is > being solved by more sophisticated means, appealing to so-called "cultural" > differences. Although the old ideology appealing to biological differences > has not disappeared. Only today it is covered by a new, molecular-genetic > argumentation, an appeal not only to livestock farming, but also to the > "psychology of culture". > > It is possible to unmask this bourgeois lie, not only in words but also in > deeds, if we can understand that human development is not the ability of > individuals to experience (perejivat?) the meaning of words, but to be > genuine subjects of object-oriented activity, the subjects of labor. > > If we stay on Vygotsky's theoretical positions, which believed that the > human psyche begins with acts of sensation that thinking is just a verbal > "generalization" of the material that our senses deliver to us, then any > wretched ideologist, with a well-suspended language, will seem to us the > owner of perfect wisdom, whereas a worker or a peasant doing his own work, > but not possessing the skill of ideological verbosity, will look something > inferior. > > If someone is shocked by such an evaluation of Vygotsky's theory, open his > "Thinking and speach" and reread this key paragraph. > > "It has been said that the dialectical leap is not only a transition from > matter that is incapable of sensation to matter that is capable of > sensation, but a transition from sensation to thought. This implies that > reality is reflected in consciousness in a qualitatively different way in > thinking than it is in immediate sensation. This qualitative difference is > primarily a function of a generalized reflection of reality. Therefore, > generalization in word meaning is an act of thinking in the true sense of > the word. At the same time, however, meaning is an inseparable part of the > word; it belongs not only to the domain of thought but to the domain of > speech. A word without meaning is not a word, but an empty sound. A word > without meaning no longer belongs to the domain of speech. One cannot say > of word meaning what we said earlier of the elements of the word taken > separately. Is word meaning speech or is it thought? It is both at one and > the same time; it is a unit of verbal thinking. It is obvious, then, that > our method must be that of semantic analysis. Our method must rely on the > analysts of the meaningful aspect of speech; it must be a method for > studying verbal meaning. > > We can reasonably anticipate that this method will produce answers to our > questions concerning the relationship between thinking and speech because > this relationship is already contained in the unit of analysis. In studying > the function, structure, and development of this unit, we will come to > understand a great deal that is of direct relevance to the problem of the > relationship of thinking to speech and to the nature of verbal thinking." > > > Obviously, such an "understanding" of thinking has not the slightest > relation to either Spinozism or Marxism. It is a naive attempt to combine eclectically > the old ideas of empirical psychology with the school textbook of formal > logic. > > (Of course, I understand that this paragraph needs more detailed > theoretical analysis. And I will not slow down this analysis in the very > near future. > In the meantime, I only note that Vygotsky's assertion that > "generalization is a verbal act of thought" is a maximally aphoristic > expression of his idealistic position. For us, as for the materialists, the > generalization is a practical act and its instrument is the instrument of > labor. And the initial and universal instrument of generalization is not a > sign, but an instrument of labor. So the ax is a means of generalizing the > properties of wood. The ax is, in the same time, a means of analyzing all > the same wood. All this is obvious, looking through the optics of > Spinoza-Ilyenkov, that is, simply a Marxist definition of ideality.) > > Theoretical conclusions made by Vygotsky from the results of Luria's trip > to Uzbekistan logically follow from the above. The Uzbek illiterate > peasant, not from school textbooks, but from his own labor experience > knowing how the earth, aryk, water, hoe and melon are connected, and > therefore refusing to produce meaningless formal logical operations with > words denoting these things, is declared a primitive thinking by > "complexes". Simultaneously, any school crap who knows how to pronounce > definitions from his textbook and familiar with the melon only when it is > bought, washed and cut by his mommy, is declared the bearer of scientific > consciousness. > > Only in this way can we, as psychologists and teachers, come to the value > of instruments of labor, not only for the distribution of material wealth, > but also for the distribution of the spiritual wealth, for the distribution > of the ability to think, for the distribution of culture. Only in this way > can we approach the Marxist definition of culture as the totality of the > means of its object-oriented activity accumulated by humankind the means of > its labor. Only on the path of such based on idea of object-oriented > activity understanding of man we will be able to get out of the deadlock of > the semiotic, with its symbolic arbitrariness. > > Vygotsky's merit is that he was the first who seriously set the task of > creating a Marxist psychology and his merit can be considered that the > first real step in this direction was made by his friend and student AN > Leontiev. > Our task is to continue their mission. > > Sasha > > > > > > > > > * ------------------------------ ??: Alfredo Jornet Gil > > ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity" >; Mike Cole > >; ivan-dgf >; Martin John Packer >; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? >; Alexander Surmava > > ??????????: > ?????, 25 ??????? 2017 15:03 ????: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: > Object oriented activity and communication * > > *Dear Sasha, all, * > > apologies for late response, as we've had some health issues at home that > fortunately are now dissipating but which have limited participation > anywhere else than home life. > > The real need of democratic pedagogy. That sounds like a concrete aspect > to begin moving on to what we had hoped at the beginning of this > conversation: how is this all gonna be of practical (real) relevance to us > and not only armchair discussion. So, in what sense is this 'real,' and is > this a 'need'? (I am not addressing Sasha alone, I am addressing any and > everyone) > > Alfredo > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Alexander Surmava > *Sent:* 21 October 2017 13:36 > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole; Alfredo Jornet Gil; > ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? > *Subject:* ???: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity > and communication > > Dear Martin, > I think that if we're going to discuss the method of Marx, then it is > better to do it discussing his most mature work. That is evidently "Das > Kapital" and Ilyenkov's monograph "Dialectics of the abstract and concrete > in theoretical thinking". I am aware that there is a point of view that the > position of Marx as a humanist was adequately presented in Gr?ndrisse, > whereas the humanistic core of Marx's theory was allegedly lost in ?Das > Kapital?. Accordingly, Marxism is better to study with the help of > Gr?ndrisse, and not with the help of ?Das Kapital?. Along with Ilyenkov I > do not share this view. > I'm afraid that the discussion of this topic would take us too far from > our psychological themes. I think that we should not get stuck in > discussing the order of "steps", but immediately put our foot on the first > "step" so that after that try to rise from it to the second, and so on ... > > Taking into account my not young age, it seems to me that at least for me, > it's time to move on from the discussion of the method to the discussion of > the subject, from the preparation to thinking, to the thinking as such. > Especially because the Method can not be studied before and regardless of > the study of the very subject. Perhaps this seems paradoxical, but it is a > paradox only for those who are not familiar with the dialectic of Spinoza > and Marx. > > Meanwhile, instead of discussing the question - what is activity, or what > is the psyche - we continue to carry water in a sieve, discussing the > singular or plural of the term activity. Without a doubt, this topic is > very useful for translators from Russian (or German) language to English, > but theoretically it is not very informative. And besides, we are convinced > that Andy Blunden completely exhausted this topic a few years ago. > > Much more interesting would be to discuss the question: what is the > justification to declare Vygotsky the founder of activity theory. Where, in > any of his works, Vygotsky introduces the concept of activity, not just > uses the term ?activity? in the theoretical contexts in which it is used > habitually by idealistic psychology. ?The activity (or activities) of > consciousness?, ?the activity (or activities) of mental functions?, ?speech > activity (or activities)?, the concrete activities of the personality?- all > this has nothing to do with object-oriented activity, with Spinoza and Marx. > > It seems to me that our main mistake is that we are discussing the > subtleties of understanding the categories of activity by Vygotsky and > Leontyev, whereas we need something different. It is necessary to try to > formulate OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of the activity, proceeding from THE REAL > NEED OF THE PRACTICE OF DEMOCRATIC PEDAGOGY. > It is impossible to understand activity based on Vygotsky's ideas, because > there was no such theoretical category in his theoretical system of views. > AN Leontiev introduces a category of object-oriented activity into > psychology, but his theory is of little use for solving practical problems > too, for saying ?A?, Leontyev never said ?B?. Having proposed the principle > of activity as the universal basis of the psychological theory, its germ > cell AN Leontiev did not go further failing to concretize this correctly > chosen abstract category. > Once again, from the hobby group > of > lovers of Vygotsky, with his "?ultural-?istorical Psychology" and AN > Leontyev with his "Psychological Theory of Activity" we all have to become > community of researchers developing fundamentally new approaches to > education, based on dialectical, revolutionary method of Marx. > For the realization of this dream, it is necessary to begin not so much - > to learn to listen to each other... :-) > Sincerely, > Sasha > > > ------------------------------ > *??:* Martin John Packer > *????:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *??????????:* ???????, 20 ??????? 2017 3:08 > *????:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and > communication > > Right, Marx was himself well aware of this difference. My point is that we > have begin to talk about ?the start? of Marx?s analysis, and about its > ?stages,? but these should not be equated with the order of the treatment > in Capital. > > Martin > > > > > On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden nden@mira.net>> wrote: > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm > > Of course the method of presentation must differ in form > from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the > material in detail, to analyse its different forms of > development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only > after this work is done, can the actual movement be > adequately described. If this is done successfully, if > the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as > in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a > mere a priori construction. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > Seems to me that if we?re going to talk about the details of Marx?s > analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. The two have > virtually opposite organizations; it?s clear that the order of presentation > in Capital was not the order of analysis. > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 25 17:15:22 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 17:15:22 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVu?= =?utf-8?q?ted_activity_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <1700408066.6258290.1508959180079@mail.yahoo.com> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> <630D49CF-00CD-463E-A9B1-1E2924FCE197@uniandes.edu.co> <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> <6B0A96B7-3ACE-43E8-8CFC-3AD05568269A@uniandes.edu.co> <919379338.1678471.1508585766999@mail.yahoo.com> <1508933013877.70037@iped.uio.no> <1700408066.6258290.1508959180079@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Amen to the goals you set for a democratic education, Haydi. It seems that the work of Bibler is relevant to the discussion. Here is a summary that Eugene has made available through research gate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247887341_A_Few_Words_About_Bibler's_Dialogics_The_School_of_the_Dialogue_of_Cultures_Conception_and_Curriculum . mike On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:19 PM, wrote: > Dear Alfredo,all, > > First I hope there'll always be relief and rest and comfort at home and at > everybody's so that all of us can feel happy and hopeful! > > Second the attached could get us closer to the key as defined as concrete > in democratic pedagogy. So far there must have appeared having gone into > extremes. Experience has shown that sticking to specific ideas as the > definite , the inalienable , the merely genuine legitimate , the > uncompromisable , the MY ever truth , even from the side of the most > learned ones , could in all evidence harm our discussions and lead to > dogma-nourishing. Marx also explicitly advises more and more reading and > delving into matters. > > Providing transitional space will smack of rationality wit and wisdom not > ever-drawbacks , surrender , self-deceit or a trait to one's cause. > > What you have so far referred to on many occasions , that is , what will > come out of all this process of negotiation , discussion , polemic > quarreling , etc. is , I think , already at hand. > > Even at the most advanced countries the macrosocial planning and > programming on the part of the Global Capital has put all educational > practitioners at a defensive and a stop-to-be position and at risk of > regression , drawback and humiliation and losing of all that's been > victorious to this point of time in the hope of capturing and invading even > our remotest strongholds. It's not that we can summarize it in just > non-rote learning or a ban on monopolistic aristocratic advantageous > education or being cautious and on the alert of non-allowance of giving > permit to learners in theory devoid of practice or the positivistic > preoccupation and dealing with factual procedures or statistical numerical > bemusing or qual-free quantification in non-acceptance of plausible > conceptualizaion and theorization. Our in-class tracking should have a > glance at and be quite in harmony with what all combatants of the large > globe bear on their shoulders so that peace , all-embracing equality , > brotherhood , non-violence , tolerance and co-existence in exaltation and > meritocracy are obtained ACTUALLY. Thanks! > > Best > > Haydi > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Alfredo Jornet Gil > *To:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" ; Mike > Cole ; ivan-dgf ; Martin John > Packer ; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? < > haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>; Alexander Surmava < > alexander.surmava@yahoo.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, 25 October 2017, 15:33:42 > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity > and communication > > Dear Sasha, all, > > apologies for late response, as we've had some health issues at home that > fortunately are now dissipating but which have limited participation > anywhere else than home life. > > The real need of democratic pedagogy. That sounds like a concrete aspect > to begin moving on to what we had hoped at the beginning of this > conversation: how is this all gonna be of practical (real) relevance to us > and not only armchair discussion. So, in what sense is this 'real,' and is > this a 'need'? (I am not addressing Sasha alone, I am addressing any and > everyone) > > Alfredo > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Alexander Surmava > *Sent:* 21 October 2017 13:36 > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole; Alfredo Jornet Gil; > ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? > *Subject:* ???: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity > and communication > > Dear Martin, > I think that if we're going to discuss the method of Marx, then it is > better to do it discussing his most mature work. That is evidently "Das > Kapital" and Ilyenkov's monograph "Dialectics of the abstract and concrete > in theoretical thinking". I am aware that there is a point of view that the > position of Marx as a humanist was adequately presented in Gr?ndrisse, > whereas the humanistic core of Marx's theory was allegedly lost in ?Das > Kapital?. Accordingly, Marxism is better to study with the help of > Gr?ndrisse, and not with the help of ?Das Kapital?. Along with Ilyenkov I > do not share this view. > I'm afraid that the discussion of this topic would take us too far from > our psychological themes. I think that we should not get stuck in > discussing the order of "steps", but immediately put our foot on the first > "step" so that after that try to rise from it to the second, and so on ... > > Taking into account my not young age, it seems to me that at least for me, > it's time to move on from the discussion of the method to the discussion of > the subject, from the preparation to thinking, to the thinking as such. > Especially because the Method can not be studied before and regardless of > the study of the very subject. Perhaps this seems paradoxical, but it is a > paradox only for those who are not familiar with the dialectic of Spinoza > and Marx. > > Meanwhile, instead of discussing the question - what is activity, or what > is the psyche - we continue to carry water in a sieve, discussing the > singular or plural of the term activity. Without a doubt, this topic is > very useful for translators from Russian (or German) language to English, > but theoretically it is not very informative. And besides, we are convinced > that Andy Blunden completely exhausted this topic a few years ago. > > Much more interesting would be to discuss the question: what is the > justification to declare Vygotsky the founder of activity theory. Where, in > any of his works, Vygotsky introduces the concept of activity, not just > uses the term ?activity? in the theoretical contexts in which it is used > habitually by idealistic psychology. ?The activity (or activities) of > consciousness?, ?the activity (or activities) of mental functions?, ?speech > activity (or activities)?, the concrete activities of the personality?- all > this has nothing to do with object-oriented activity, with Spinoza and Marx. > > It seems to me that our main mistake is that we are discussing the > subtleties of understanding the categories of activity by Vygotsky and > Leontyev, whereas we need something different. It is necessary to try to > formulate OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of the activity, proceeding from THE REAL > NEED OF THE PRACTICE OF DEMOCRATIC PEDAGOGY. > It is impossible to understand activity based on Vygotsky's ideas, because > there was no such theoretical category in his theoretical system of views. > AN Leontiev introduces a category of object-oriented activity into > psychology, but his theory is of little use for solving practical problems > too, for saying ?A?, Leontyev never said ?B?. Having proposed the principle > of activity as the universal basis of the psychological theory, its germ > cell AN Leontiev did not go further failing to concretize this correctly > chosen abstract category. > Once again, from the hobby group > of > lovers of Vygotsky, with his "?ultural-?istorical Psychology" and AN > Leontyev with his "Psychological Theory of Activity" we all have to become > community of researchers developing fundamentally new approaches to > education, based on dialectical, revolutionary method of Marx. > For the realization of this dream, it is necessary to begin not so much - > to learn to listen to each other... :-) > Sincerely, > Sasha > > > ------------------------------ > *??:* Martin John Packer > *????:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *??????????:* ???????, 20 ??????? 2017 3:08 > *????:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and > communication > > Right, Marx was himself well aware of this difference. My point is that we > have begin to talk about ?the start? of Marx?s analysis, and about its > ?stages,? but these should not be equated with the order of the treatment > in Capital. > > Martin > > > > > On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden nden@mira.net>> wrote: > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm > > Of course the method of presentation must differ in form > from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the > material in detail, to analyse its different forms of > development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only > after this work is done, can the actual movement be > adequately described. If this is done successfully, if > the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as > in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a > mere a priori construction. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > Seems to me that if we?re going to talk about the details of Marx?s > analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. The two have > virtually opposite organizations; it?s clear that the order of presentation > in Capital was not the order of analysis. > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > From Peg.Griffin@att.net Wed Oct 25 17:29:07 2017 From: Peg.Griffin@att.net (Peg Griffin) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 20:29:07 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Re OliverSachs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00b301d34df1$708185b0$51849110$@att.net> :) -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 7:29 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re OliverSachs Sachs was a great champion of Luria's and a fellow traveler in romantic science. From: Frank Kessel Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 4:19 PM Subject: Fwd: NYTimes: Oliver Sacks, a Composer and His Last Work A life fully lived (till the end) . . . Here's a story from The New York Times that I thought you'd find interesting: I am grateful to have been present at the creation of the book of scientific essays he would not live to see. Read More... Sent from my iPhone From d.s.webster@durham.ac.uk Thu Oct 26 00:14:23 2017 From: d.s.webster@durham.ac.uk (WEBSTER, DAVID S.) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 07:14:23 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiAgUmU6INCe0YLQsjogUmU6INCe0YLQsjogUmU6?= =?utf-8?q?_Object_oriented_activity_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <1311730113.6439834.1508973202950@mail.yahoo.com> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <1508190552093.73064@iped .uio.no> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> <630D49CF-00CD-463E-A9B1-1E2924FCE197@uniandes.edu.co> <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> <6B0A96B7-3ACE-43E8-8CFC-3AD05568269A@uniandes.edu.co> <919379338.1678471.1508585766999@mail.yahoo.com> <1508933013877.70037@iped.uio.no> <1311730113.6439834.1508973202950@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Xmca seems to have a workerist tendency operating - for myself I have always found that the work of generalising (in Vygotsky's sense) is a labour of object-oriented activity. But that's just me -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Alexander Surmava Sent: 26 October 2017 00:13 To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole; ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? Subject: [Xmca-l] ???: Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Dear Alfredo, thank you for your very accurate reaction. You definitely noticed the main thing. Today, in the era of globalization and developed technologies, the class antagonism between exploited people and their exploiters, between capital and wage labor, assumes the appearance of the opposite between different ethnic groups and cultures. Capital itself has always been a global phenomenon, and a class of capitalists - a cosmopolitan class. Putting military overcoats on workers and sending them to fight and to kill each other under nationalist slogans, they continued to cooperate with their exploitation colleagues, somehow continuing to receive dividends from their enterprises located on the territory of their "enemy." Today Putin's friends and henchmen who curse the "insidious West" take their capitals to this West, buy property there, send their children to study there and go there themselves to rest and be treated. And today Mr. Poroshenko - the president of the country that was subjected to the aggression of the neighboring state, owns chocolate factories located on the territory of this country. In Russia, and in Western Europe, and in the United States, the policy of the ruling classes is based today on inciting against each other the working people of different ethnic groups and confessions, on their juxtaposition of each other as superior and second-class creatures. And as an ideological justification of the enmity incited by the ruling class towards working people of a different skin color, working people speaking a different language and praying to other gods, public consciousness is infected with totally false ideas constructed allegedly on a scientific basis. All this is not new. One hundred years ago, the dominant ideology rested on undisguised racism. Today, the same task is being solved by more sophisticated means, appealing to so-called "cultural" differences. Although the old ideology appealing to biological differences has not disappeared. Only today it is covered by a new, molecular-genetic argumentation, an appeal not only to livestock farming, but also to the "psychology of culture". It is possible to unmask this bourgeois lie, not only in words but also in deeds, if we can understand that human development is not the ability of individuals to experience (perejivat?) the meaning of words, but to be genuine subjects of object-oriented activity, the subjects of labor. If we stay on Vygotsky's theoretical positions, which believed that the human psyche begins with acts of sensation that thinking is just a verbal "generalization" of the material that our senses deliver to us, then any wretched ideologist, with a well-suspended language, will seem to us the owner of perfect wisdom, whereas a worker or a peasant doing his own work, but not possessing the skill of ideological verbosity, will look something inferior. If someone is shocked by such an evaluation of Vygotsky's theory, open his "Thinking and speach" and reread this key paragraph. "It has been said that the dialectical leap is not only a transition from matter that is incapable of sensation to matter that is capable of sensation, but a transition from sensation to thought. This implies that reality is reflected in consciousness in a qualitatively different way in thinking than it is in immediate sensation. This qualitative difference is primarily a function of a generalized reflection of reality. Therefore, generalization in word meaning is an act of thinking in the true sense of the word. At the same time, however, meaning is an inseparable part of the word; it belongs not only to the domain of thought but to the domain of speech. A word without meaning is not a word, but an empty sound. A word without meaning no longer belongs to the domain of speech. One cannot say of word meaning what we said earlier of the elements of the word taken separately. Is word meaning speech or is it thought? It is both at one and the same time; it is a unit of verbal thinking. It is obvious, then, that our method must be that of semantic analysis. Our method must rely on the analysts of the meaningful aspect of speech; it must be a method for studying verbal meaning. We can reasonably anticipate that this method will produce answers to our questions concerning the relationship between thinking and speech because this relationship is already contained in the unit of analysis. In studying the function, structure, and development of this unit, we will come to understand a great deal that is of direct relevance to the problem of the relationship of thinking to speech and to the nature of verbal thinking." Obviously, such an "understanding" of thinking has not the slightest relation to either Spinozism or Marxism. It is a naive attempt to combine?eclectically the old ideas of empirical psychology with the school textbook of formal logic. (Of course, I understand that this paragraph needs more detailed theoretical analysis. And I will not slow down this analysis in the very near future.?In the meantime, I only note that Vygotsky's assertion that "generalization is a verbal act of thought" is a maximally aphoristic expression of his idealistic position. For us, as for the materialists, the generalization is a practical act and its instrument is the instrument of labor. And the initial and universal instrument of generalization is not a sign, but an instrument of labor. So the ax is a means of generalizing the properties of wood. The ax is, in the same time, a means of analyzing all the same wood. All this is obvious, looking through the optics of Spinoza-Ilyenkov, that is, simply a Marxist definition of ideality.) Theoretical conclusions made by Vygotsky from the results of Luria's trip to Uzbekistan logically follow from the above. The Uzbek illiterate peasant, not from school textbooks, but from his own labor experience knowing how the earth, aryk, water, hoe and melon are connected, and therefore refusing to produce meaningless formal logical operations with words denoting these things, is declared a primitive thinking by "complexes". Simultaneously, any school crap who knows how to pronounce definitions from his textbook and familiar with the melon only when it is bought, washed and cut by his mommy, is declared the bearer of scientific consciousness. Only in this way can we, as psychologists and teachers, come to the value of instruments of labor, not only for the distribution of material wealth, but also for the distribution of the spiritual wealth, for the distribution of the ability to think, for the distribution of culture. Only in this way can we approach the Marxist definition of culture as the totality of the means of its object-oriented activity accumulated by humankind the means of its labor. Only on the path of such based on idea of object-oriented activity understanding of man we will be able to get out of the deadlock of the semiotic, with its symbolic arbitrariness. Vygotsky's merit is that he was the first who seriously set the task of creating a Marxist psychology and his merit can be considered that the first real step in this direction was made by his friend and student AN Leontiev.Our task is to continue their mission. Sasha ??: Alfredo Jornet Gil ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" ; Mike Cole ; ivan-dgf ; Martin John Packer ; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? ; Alexander Surmava ??????????: ?????, 25 ??????? 2017 15:03 ????: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication #yiv0081188988 #yiv0081188988 -- P {margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;}#yiv0081188988 Dear Sasha, all,? apologies for late response, as we've had some health issues at?home that fortunately?are now dissipating but which have limited participation anywhere else than home life.? The real need of democratic pedagogy. That sounds like a concrete aspect to begin moving on to what we had hoped at the beginning of this conversation: how is this all gonna be of practical (real) relevance to us and not only armchair discussion. So,?in what sense is this 'real,' and is this a 'need'? (I am not addressing Sasha alone, I am addressing any and everyone)? Alfredo ? From: Alexander Surmava Sent: 21 October 2017 13:36 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole; Alfredo Jornet Gil; ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? Subject: ???: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication?Dear Martin,I think that if we're going to discuss the method of Marx, then it is better to do it discussing his most mature work. That is evidently "Das Kapital" and Ilyenkov's monograph "Dialectics of the abstract and concrete in theoretical thinking". I am aware that there is a point of view that the position of Marx as a humanist was adequately presented in Gr?ndrisse, whereas the humanistic core of Marx's theory was allegedly lost in ?Das Kapital?. Accordingly, Marxism is better to study with the help of Gr?ndrisse, and not with the help of ?Das Kapital?. Along with Ilyenkov I do not share this view.I'm afraid that the discussion of this topic would take us too far from our psychological themes. I think that we should not get stuck in discussing the order of "steps", but immediately put our foot on the first "step" so that after that try to rise from it to the second, and so on ...?Taking into account my not young age, it seems to me that at least for me, it's time to move on from the discussion of the method to the discussion of the subject, from the preparation to thinking, to the thinking as such. Especially because the Method can not be studied before and regardless of the study of the very subject. Perhaps this seems paradoxical, but it is a paradox only for those who are not familiar with the dialectic of Spinoza and Marx.?Meanwhile, instead of discussing the question - what is activity, or what is the psyche - we continue to carry water in a sieve, discussing the singular or plural of the term activity. Without a doubt, this topic is very useful for translators from Russian (or German) language to English, but theoretically it is not very informative. And besides, we are convinced that Andy Blunden completely exhausted this topic a few years ago.?Much more interesting would be to discuss the question: what is the justification to declare Vygotsky the founder of activity theory. Where, in any of his works, Vygotsky introduces the concept of activity, not just uses the term ?activity? in the theoretical contexts in which it is used habitually by idealistic psychology. ?The activity (or activities) of consciousness?, ?the activity (or activities) of mental functions?, ?speech activity (or activities)?, the concrete activities of the personality?- all this has nothing to do with object-oriented activity, with Spinoza and Marx.?It seems to me that our main mistake is that we are discussing the subtleties of understanding the categories of activity by Vygotsky and Leontyev, whereas we need something different. It is necessary to try to formulate OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of the activity, proceeding from THE REAL NEED OF THE PRACTICE OF DEMOCRATIC PEDAGOGY.It is impossible to understand activity based on Vygotsky's ideas, because there was no such theoretical category in his theoretical system of views. AN Leontiev introduces a category of object-oriented activity into psychology, but his theory is of little use for solving practical problems too, for saying ?A?, Leontyev never said ?B?. Having proposed the principle of activity as the universal basis of the psychological theory, its germ cell AN Leontiev did not go further failing to concretize this correctly chosen abstract category.Once again, from thehobby group of lovers of Vygotsky, with his "?ultural-?istorical Psychology" and AN Leontyev with his "Psychological Theory of Activity" we all have to become community of researchers developing fundamentally new approaches to education, based on dialectical, revolutionary method of Marx.For the realization of this dream, it is necessary to begin not so much - to learn to listen to each other... :-)Sincerely,Sasha ??: Martin John Packer ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" ??????????: ???????, 20 ??????? 2017 3:08 ????: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Right, Marx was himself well aware of this difference. My point is that we have begin to talk about ?the start? of Marx?s analysis, and about its ?stages,? but these should not be equated with the order of the treatment in Capital. Martin On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm ? Of course the method of presentation must differ in form ? from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the ? material in detail, to analyse its different forms of ? development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only ? after this work is done, can the actual movement be ? adequately described. If this is done successfully, if ? the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as ? in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a ? mere a priori construction. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: Seems to me that if we?re going to talk about the details of Marx?s analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. The two have virtually opposite organizations; it?s clear that the order of presentation in Capital was not the order of analysis. Martin From ablunden@mira.net Thu Oct 26 01:14:25 2017 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 19:14:25 +1100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog?= =?utf-8?q?Object_oriented_activity_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <1508190552093.73064@iped .uio.no> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> <630D49CF-00CD-463E-A9B1-1E2924FCE197@uniandes.edu.co> <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> <6B0A96B7-3ACE-43E8-8CFC-3AD05568269A@uniandes.edu.co> <919379338.1678471.1508585766999@mail.yahoo.com> <1508933013877.70037@iped.uio.no> <1311730113.6439834.1508973202950@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6e7d87e2-b3e7-5b41-1175-04c13dd1d78c@mira.net> That is a tendency within our heritage, David. Some people take the category of "labour" rather than "activity" to be the key category. As I understand it, "labour," or "production," is activity in the case where production and consumption and socially mediated, but I think that activity whose object is an object of consumption should be included within the basic category of Activity Theory, even if there are important psychological differences. Some are also concerned to separate symbolic activity, such as speech or supervision of labour, from the fundamental category, giving tool-use priority over sign use, and use of the term "labour" suggests that. Vygotsky expressed himself firmly against this move. So use of "activity" rather than "labour" or vice versa does reflect certain tensions within the tradition. Andy http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Tool%20and%20Sign%20in%20Vygotskys%20Development.pdf ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 26/10/2017 6:14 PM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. wrote: > Xmca seems to have a workerist tendency operating - for myself I have always found that the work of generalising (in Vygotsky's sense) is a labour of object-oriented activity. But that's just me > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Alexander Surmava > Sent: 26 October 2017 00:13 > To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole; ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? > Subject: [Xmca-l] ???: Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication > > Dear Alfredo, > > thank you for your very accurate reaction. You definitely noticed the main thing. Today, in the era of globalization and developed technologies, the class antagonism between exploited people and their exploiters, between capital and wage labor, assumes the appearance of the opposite between different ethnic groups and cultures. Capital itself has always been a global phenomenon, and a class of capitalists - a cosmopolitan class. Putting military overcoats on workers and sending them to fight and to kill each other under nationalist slogans, they continued to cooperate with their exploitation colleagues, somehow continuing to receive dividends from their enterprises located on the territory of their "enemy." Today Putin's friends and henchmen who curse the "insidious West" take their capitals to this West, buy property there, send their children to study there and go there themselves to rest and be treated. And today Mr. Poroshenko - the president of the country that was subje > cted to the aggression of the neighboring state, owns chocolate factories located on the territory of this country. > In Russia, and in Western Europe, and in the United States, the policy of the ruling classes is based today on inciting against each other the working people of different ethnic groups and confessions, on their juxtaposition of each other as superior and second-class creatures. > And as an ideological justification of the enmity incited by the ruling class towards working people of a different skin color, working people speaking a different language and praying to other gods, public consciousness is infected with totally false ideas constructed allegedly on a scientific basis. All this is not new. One hundred years ago, the dominant ideology rested on undisguised racism. Today, the same task is being solved by more sophisticated means, appealing to so-called "cultural" differences. Although the old ideology appealing to biological differences has not disappeared. Only today it is covered by a new, molecular-genetic argumentation, an appeal not only to livestock farming, but also to the "psychology of culture". > It is possible to unmask this bourgeois lie, not only in words but also in deeds, if we can understand that human development is not the ability of individuals to experience (perejivat?) the meaning of words, but to be genuine subjects of object-oriented activity, the subjects of labor. > If we stay on Vygotsky's theoretical positions, which believed that the human psyche begins with acts of sensation that thinking is just a verbal "generalization" of the material that our senses deliver to us, then any wretched ideologist, with a well-suspended language, will seem to us the owner of perfect wisdom, whereas a worker or a peasant doing his own work, but not possessing the skill of ideological verbosity, will look something inferior. > If someone is shocked by such an evaluation of Vygotsky's theory, open his "Thinking and speach" and reread this key paragraph. > > > "It has been said that the dialectical leap is not only a transition from matter that is incapable of sensation to matter that is capable of sensation, but a transition from sensation to thought. This implies that reality is reflected in consciousness in a qualitatively different way in thinking than it is in immediate sensation. This qualitative difference is primarily a function of a generalized reflection of reality. Therefore, generalization in word meaning is an act of thinking in the true sense of the word. At the same time, however, meaning is an inseparable part of the word; it belongs not only to the domain of thought but to the domain of speech. A word without meaning is not a word, but an empty sound. A word without meaning no longer belongs to the domain of speech. One cannot say of word meaning what we said earlier of the elements of the word taken separately. Is word meaning speech or is it thought? It is both at one and the same time; it is a unit of verbal thi > nking. It is obvious, then, that our method must be that of semantic analysis. Our method must rely on the analysts of the meaningful aspect of speech; it must be a method for studying verbal meaning. > > We can reasonably anticipate that this method will produce answers to our questions concerning the relationship between thinking and speech because this relationship is already contained in the unit of analysis. In studying the function, structure, and development of this unit, we will come to understand a great deal that is of direct relevance to the problem of the relationship of thinking to speech and to the nature of verbal thinking." > > > Obviously, such an "understanding" of thinking has not the slightest relation to either Spinozism or Marxism. It is a naive attempt to combine eclectically the old ideas of empirical psychology with the school textbook of formal logic. > (Of course, I understand that this paragraph needs more detailed theoretical analysis. And I will not slow down this analysis in the very near future. In the meantime, I only note that Vygotsky's assertion that "generalization is a verbal act of thought" is a maximally aphoristic expression of his idealistic position. For us, as for the materialists, the generalization is a practical act and its instrument is the instrument of labor. And the initial and universal instrument of generalization is not a sign, but an instrument of labor. So the ax is a means of generalizing the properties of wood. The ax is, in the same time, a means of analyzing all the same wood. All this is obvious, looking through the optics of Spinoza-Ilyenkov, that is, simply a Marxist definition of ideality.) Theoretical conclusions made by Vygotsky from the results of Luria's trip to Uzbekistan logically follow from the above. The Uzbek illiterate peasant, not from school textbooks, but from his own labo > r experience knowing how the earth, aryk, water, hoe and melon are connected, and therefore refusing to produce meaningless formal logical operations with words denoting these things, is declared a primitive thinking by "complexes". Simultaneously, any school crap who knows how to pronounce definitions from his textbook and familiar with the melon only when it is bought, washed and cut by his mommy, is declared the bearer of scientific consciousness. > > Only in this way can we, as psychologists and teachers, come to the value of instruments of labor, not only for the distribution of material wealth, but also for the distribution of the spiritual wealth, for the distribution of the ability to think, for the distribution of culture. Only in this way can we approach the Marxist definition of culture as the totality of the means of its object-oriented activity accumulated by humankind the means of its labor. Only on the path of such based on idea of object-oriented activity understanding of man we will be able to get out of the deadlock of the semiotic, with its symbolic arbitrariness. > Vygotsky's merit is that he was the first who seriously set the task of creating a Marxist psychology and his merit can be considered that the first real step in this direction was made by his friend and student AN Leontiev.Our task is to continue their mission. > Sasha > > > > ??: Alfredo Jornet Gil > ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" ; Mike Cole ; ivan-dgf ; Martin John Packer ; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? ; Alexander Surmava > ??????????: ?????, 25 ??????? 2017 15:03 > ????: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication > > #yiv0081188988 #yiv0081188988 -- P {margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;}#yiv0081188988 Dear Sasha, all, > > apologies for late response, as we've had some health issues at home that fortunately are now dissipating but which have limited participation anywhere else than home life. > > The real need of democratic pedagogy. That sounds like a concrete aspect to begin moving on to what we had hoped at the beginning of this conversation: how is this all gonna be of practical (real) relevance to us and not only armchair discussion. So, in what sense is this 'real,' and is this a 'need'? (I am not addressing Sasha alone, I am addressing any and everyone) > > Alfredo > > From: Alexander Surmava > Sent: 21 October 2017 13:36 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole; Alfredo Jornet Gil; ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? > Subject: ???: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Dear Martin,I think that if we're going to discuss the method of Marx, then it is better to do it discussing his most mature work. That is evidently "Das Kapital" and Ilyenkov's monograph "Dialectics of the abstract and concrete in theoretical thinking". I am aware that there is a point of view that the position of Marx as a humanist was adequately presented in Gr?ndrisse, whereas the humanistic core of Marx's theory was allegedly lost in ?Das Kapital?. Accordingly, Marxism is better to study with the help of Gr?ndrisse, and not with the help of ?Das Kapital?. Along with Ilyenkov I do not share this view.I'm afraid that the discussion of this topic would take us too far from our psychological themes. I think that we should not get stuck in discussing the order of "steps", but immediately put our foot on the first "step" so that after that try to rise from it to the seco > nd, and so on ... Taking into account my not young age, it seems to me that at least for me, it's time to move on from the discussion of the method to the discussion of the subject, from the preparation to thinking, to the thinking as such. Especially because the Method can not be studied before and regardless of the study of the very subject. Perhaps this seems paradoxical, but it is a paradox only for those who are not familiar with the dialectic of Spinoza and Marx. Meanwhile, instead of discussing the question - what is activity, or what is the psyche - we continue to carry water in a sieve, discussing the singular or plural of the term activity. Without a doubt, this topic is very useful for translators from Russian (or German) language to English, but theoretically it is not very informative. And besides, we are convinced that Andy Blunden completely exhausted this topic a few years ago. Much more interesting would be to discuss the question: what is the justificati > on to declare Vygotsky the founder of activity theory. Where, in any > of his works, Vygotsky introduces the concept of activity, not just uses the term ?activity? in the theoretical contexts in which it is used habitually by idealistic psychology. ?The activity (or activities) of consciousness?, ?the activity (or activities) of mental functions?, ?speech activity (or activities)?, the concrete activities of the personality?- all this has nothing to do with object-oriented activity, with Spinoza and Marx. It seems to me that our main mistake is that we are discussing the subtleties of understanding the categories of activity by Vygotsky and Leontyev, whereas we need something different. It is necessary to try to formulate OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of the activity, proceeding from THE REAL NEED OF THE PRACTICE OF DEMOCRATIC PEDAGOGY.It is impossible to understand activity based on Vygotsky's ideas, because there was no such theoretical category in his theoretical system of views. AN Leontiev introduces a category of object-oriented a > ctivity into psychology, but his theory is of little use for solving practical problems too, for saying ?A?, Leontyev never said ?B?. Having proposed the principle of activity as the universal basis of the psychological theory, its germ cell AN Leontiev did not go further failing to concretize this correctly chosen abstract category.Once again, from thehobby group of lovers of Vygotsky, with his "?ultural-?istorical Psychology" and AN Leontyev with his "Psychological Theory of Activity" we all have to become community of researchers developing fundamentally new approaches to education, based on dialectical, revolutionary method of Marx.For the realization of this dream, it is necessary to begin not so much - to learn to listen to each other... :-)Sincerely,Sasha > > ??: Martin John Packer > ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > ??????????: ???????, 20 ??????? 2017 3:08 > ????: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication > > Right, Marx was himself well aware of this difference. My point is that we have begin to talk about ?the start? of Marx?s analysis, and about its ?stages,? but these should not be equated with the order of the treatment in Capital. > > Martin > > > > > On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm > > Of course the method of presentation must differ in form > from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the > material in detail, to analyse its different forms of > development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only > after this work is done, can the actual movement be > adequately described. If this is done successfully, if > the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as > in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a > mere a priori construction. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > Seems to me that if we?re going to talk about the details of Marx?s analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. The two have virtually opposite organizations; it?s clear that the order of presentation in Capital was not the order of analysis. > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Thu Oct 26 03:55:47 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 19:55:47 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog?= =?utf-8?q?Object_oriented_activity_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <6e7d87e2-b3e7-5b41-1175-04c13dd1d78c@mira.net> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> <630D49CF-00CD-463E-A9B1-1E2924FCE197@uniandes.edu.co> <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> <6B0A96B7-3ACE-43E8-8CFC-3AD05568269A@uniandes.edu.co> <919379338.1678471.1508585766999@mail.yahoo.com> <1508933013877.70037@iped.uio.no> <1311730113.6439834.1508973202950@mail.yahoo.com> <6e7d87e2-b3e7-5b41-1175-04c13dd1d78c@mira.net> Message-ID: All Vygotsky says is that thinking is represented in the brain differently than immediate sensation. Vygotsky didn't have access to MRI scans or computerized tomography. In fact these can and do distinguish between verbs of sensation and verbs of verbal report. But what Vygotsky did have access to is the grammar of reported speech. In all languages that I know, it is possible to quote the words of another person. I can say, for example: Sasha says "Obviously, this has nothing to do with Marxism". I can also quote the thoughts of another person. Sasha thinks, "Obviously, this has nothing to with Marxism." I can do this even when there are no actual words, just as I can read Sasha's thoughts without him speaking them. However, in no languages that Iknow is it possible to quote the actions or the immediate sensations of another person. I cannot say, for example: "Sasha stood "Up"" "Sasha felt 'Cold'". When I try to say this, what I end up saying is that Sasha thought a word meaning, not that he felt an immediate sensation. In Chinese we say, "The speaker has gone, and the tea is cold." This is originally a line from the revolutionary opera "Shajiabang", about a woman who runs a teahouse used by communists. In this scene, the children are acting out a visit by a Chinese quisling and a Japanese officer; they accuse the woman of communist sympathies, and she says that all people who come to her teahouse have sympathies, but as soon as they go, their tea is cold, and she throws it out (6:13). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUYvyRMvCNU There is no way, as Wittgenstein says, to feel the toothache of another person; all you can do is to describe it in thoughts and words. Paradoxically, when we want to share thoughts, we can do it "immediately", because thoughts and words have already made the dialectical leap--the leap from idiolect into a sharable dialect. David Kellogg other verbs). First of all, notice that he is saying that On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > That is a tendency within our heritage, David. Some people > take the category of "labour" rather than "activity" to be > the key category. > > As I understand it, "labour," or "production," is activity > in the case where production and consumption and socially > mediated, but I think that activity whose object is an > object of consumption should be included within the basic > category of Activity Theory, even if there are important > psychological differences. Some are also concerned to > separate symbolic activity, such as speech or supervision of > labour, from the fundamental category, giving tool-use > priority over sign use, and use of the term "labour" > suggests that. Vygotsky expressed himself firmly against > this move. > > So use of "activity" rather than "labour" or vice versa does > reflect certain tensions within the tradition. > > Andy > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Tool%20and% > 20Sign%20in%20Vygotskys%20Development.pdf > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > On 26/10/2017 6:14 PM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. wrote: > > Xmca seems to have a workerist tendency operating - for myself I have > always found that the work of generalising (in Vygotsky's sense) is a > labour of object-oriented activity. But that's just me > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Alexander Surmava > > Sent: 26 October 2017 00:13 > > To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole; > ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? > > Subject: [Xmca-l] ???: Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity > and communication > > > > Dear Alfredo, > > > > thank you for your very accurate reaction. You definitely noticed the > main thing. Today, in the era of globalization and developed technologies, > the class antagonism between exploited people and their exploiters, between > capital and wage labor, assumes the appearance of the opposite between > different ethnic groups and cultures. Capital itself has always been a > global phenomenon, and a class of capitalists - a cosmopolitan class. > Putting military overcoats on workers and sending them to fight and to kill > each other under nationalist slogans, they continued to cooperate with > their exploitation colleagues, somehow continuing to receive dividends from > their enterprises located on the territory of their "enemy." Today Putin's > friends and henchmen who curse the "insidious West" take their capitals to > this West, buy property there, send their children to study there and go > there themselves to rest and be treated. And today Mr. Poroshenko - the > president of the country that was subje > > cted to the aggression of the neighboring state, owns chocolate > factories located on the territory of this country. > > In Russia, and in Western Europe, and in the United States, the policy > of the ruling classes is based today on inciting against each other the > working people of different ethnic groups and confessions, on their > juxtaposition of each other as superior and second-class creatures. > > And as an ideological justification of the enmity incited by the ruling > class towards working people of a different skin color, working people > speaking a different language and praying to other gods, public > consciousness is infected with totally false ideas constructed allegedly on > a scientific basis. All this is not new. One hundred years ago, the > dominant ideology rested on undisguised racism. Today, the same task is > being solved by more sophisticated means, appealing to so-called "cultural" > differences. Although the old ideology appealing to biological differences > has not disappeared. Only today it is covered by a new, molecular-genetic > argumentation, an appeal not only to livestock farming, but also to the > "psychology of culture". > > It is possible to unmask this bourgeois lie, not only in words but also > in deeds, if we can understand that human development is not the ability of > individuals to experience (perejivat?) the meaning of words, but to be > genuine subjects of object-oriented activity, the subjects of labor. > > If we stay on Vygotsky's theoretical positions, which believed that the > human psyche begins with acts of sensation that thinking is just a verbal > "generalization" of the material that our senses deliver to us, then any > wretched ideologist, with a well-suspended language, will seem to us the > owner of perfect wisdom, whereas a worker or a peasant doing his own work, > but not possessing the skill of ideological verbosity, will look something > inferior. > > If someone is shocked by such an evaluation of Vygotsky's theory, open > his "Thinking and speach" and reread this key paragraph. > > > > > > "It has been said that the dialectical leap is not only a transition > from matter that is incapable of sensation to matter that is capable of > sensation, but a transition from sensation to thought. This implies that > reality is reflected in consciousness in a qualitatively different way in > thinking than it is in immediate sensation. This qualitative difference is > primarily a function of a generalized reflection of reality. Therefore, > generalization in word meaning is an act of thinking in the true sense of > the word. At the same time, however, meaning is an inseparable part of the > word; it belongs not only to the domain of thought but to the domain of > speech. A word without meaning is not a word, but an empty sound. A word > without meaning no longer belongs to the domain of speech. One cannot say > of word meaning what we said earlier of the elements of the word taken > separately. Is word meaning speech or is it thought? It is both at one and > the same time; it is a unit of verbal thi > > nking. It is obvious, then, that our method must be that of semantic > analysis. Our method must rely on the analysts of the meaningful aspect of > speech; it must be a method for studying verbal meaning. > > > > We can reasonably anticipate that this method will produce answers to > our questions concerning the relationship between thinking and speech > because this relationship is already contained in the unit of analysis. In > studying the function, structure, and development of this unit, we will > come to understand a great deal that is of direct relevance to the problem > of the relationship of thinking to speech and to the nature of verbal > thinking." > > > > > > Obviously, such an "understanding" of thinking has not the slightest > relation to either Spinozism or Marxism. It is a naive attempt to combine > eclectically the old ideas of empirical psychology with the school textbook > of formal logic. > > (Of course, I understand that this paragraph needs more detailed > theoretical analysis. And I will not slow down this analysis in the very > near future. In the meantime, I only note that Vygotsky's assertion that > "generalization is a verbal act of thought" is a maximally aphoristic > expression of his idealistic position. For us, as for the materialists, the > generalization is a practical act and its instrument is the instrument of > labor. And the initial and universal instrument of generalization is not a > sign, but an instrument of labor. So the ax is a means of generalizing the > properties of wood. The ax is, in the same time, a means of analyzing all > the same wood. All this is obvious, looking through the optics of > Spinoza-Ilyenkov, that is, simply a Marxist definition of ideality.) > Theoretical conclusions made by Vygotsky from the results of Luria's trip > to Uzbekistan logically follow from the above. The Uzbek illiterate > peasant, not from school textbooks, but from his own labo > > r experience knowing how the earth, aryk, water, hoe and melon are > connected, and therefore refusing to produce meaningless formal logical > operations with words denoting these things, is declared a primitive > thinking by "complexes". Simultaneously, any school crap who knows how to > pronounce definitions from his textbook and familiar with the melon only > when it is bought, washed and cut by his mommy, is declared the bearer of > scientific consciousness. > > > > Only in this way can we, as psychologists and teachers, come to the > value of instruments of labor, not only for the distribution of material > wealth, but also for the distribution of the spiritual wealth, for the > distribution of the ability to think, for the distribution of culture. Only > in this way can we approach the Marxist definition of culture as the > totality of the means of its object-oriented activity accumulated by > humankind the means of its labor. Only on the path of such based on idea of > object-oriented activity understanding of man we will be able to get out of > the deadlock of the semiotic, with its symbolic arbitrariness. > > Vygotsky's merit is that he was the first who seriously set the task of > creating a Marxist psychology and his merit can be considered that the > first real step in this direction was made by his friend and student AN > Leontiev.Our task is to continue their mission. > > Sasha > > > > > > > > ??: Alfredo Jornet Gil > > ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" ; > Mike Cole ; ivan-dgf ; Martin > John Packer ; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? < > haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>; Alexander Surmava < > alexander.surmava@yahoo.com> > > ??????????: ?????, 25 ??????? 2017 15:03 > > ????: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and > communication > > > > #yiv0081188988 #yiv0081188988 -- P {margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;}#yiv0081188988 > Dear Sasha, all, > > > > apologies for late response, as we've had some health issues at home > that fortunately are now dissipating but which have limited participation > anywhere else than home life. > > > > The real need of democratic pedagogy. That sounds like a concrete aspect > to begin moving on to what we had hoped at the beginning of this > conversation: how is this all gonna be of practical (real) relevance to us > and not only armchair discussion. So, in what sense is this 'real,' and is > this a 'need'? (I am not addressing Sasha alone, I am addressing any and > everyone) > > > > Alfredo > > > > From: Alexander Surmava > > Sent: 21 October 2017 13:36 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole; Alfredo Jornet Gil; > ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? > > Subject: ???: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity > and communication Dear Martin,I think that if we're going to discuss the > method of Marx, then it is better to do it discussing his most mature work. > That is evidently "Das Kapital" and Ilyenkov's monograph "Dialectics of the > abstract and concrete in theoretical thinking". I am aware that there is a > point of view that the position of Marx as a humanist was adequately > presented in Gr?ndrisse, whereas the humanistic core of Marx's theory was > allegedly lost in ?Das Kapital?. Accordingly, Marxism is better to study > with the help of Gr?ndrisse, and not with the help of ?Das Kapital?. Along > with Ilyenkov I do not share this view.I'm afraid that the discussion of > this topic would take us too far from our psychological themes. I think > that we should not get stuck in discussing the order of "steps", but > immediately put our foot on the first "step" so that after that try to rise > from it to the seco > > nd, and so on ... Taking into account my not young age, it seems to me > that at least for me, it's time to move on from the discussion of the > method to the discussion of the subject, from the preparation to thinking, > to the thinking as such. Especially because the Method can not be studied > before and regardless of the study of the very subject. Perhaps this seems > paradoxical, but it is a paradox only for those who are not familiar with > the dialectic of Spinoza and Marx. Meanwhile, instead of discussing the > question - what is activity, or what is the psyche - we continue to carry > water in a sieve, discussing the singular or plural of the term activity. > Without a doubt, this topic is very useful for translators from Russian (or > German) language to English, but theoretically it is not very informative. > And besides, we are convinced that Andy Blunden completely exhausted this > topic a few years ago. Much more interesting would be to discuss the > question: what is the justificati > > on to declare Vygotsky the founder of activity theory. Where, in any > > of his works, Vygotsky introduces the concept of activity, not just uses > the term ?activity? in the theoretical contexts in which it is used > habitually by idealistic psychology. ?The activity (or activities) of > consciousness?, ?the activity (or activities) of mental functions?, ?speech > activity (or activities)?, the concrete activities of the personality?- all > this has nothing to do with object-oriented activity, with Spinoza and > Marx. It seems to me that our main mistake is that we are discussing the > subtleties of understanding the categories of activity by Vygotsky and > Leontyev, whereas we need something different. It is necessary to try to > formulate OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of the activity, proceeding from THE REAL > NEED OF THE PRACTICE OF DEMOCRATIC PEDAGOGY.It is impossible to understand > activity based on Vygotsky's ideas, because there was no such theoretical > category in his theoretical system of views. AN Leontiev introduces a > category of object-oriented a > > ctivity into psychology, but his theory is of little use for solving > practical problems too, for saying ?A?, Leontyev never said ?B?. Having > proposed the principle of activity as the universal basis of the > psychological theory, its germ cell AN Leontiev did not go further failing > to concretize this correctly chosen abstract category.Once again, from > thehobby group of lovers of Vygotsky, with his "?ultural-?istorical > Psychology" and AN Leontyev with his "Psychological Theory of Activity" we > all have to become community of researchers developing fundamentally new > approaches to education, based on dialectical, revolutionary method of > Marx.For the realization of this dream, it is necessary to begin not so > much - to learn to listen to each other... :-)Sincerely,Sasha > > > > ??: Martin John Packer > > ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > ??????????: ???????, 20 ??????? 2017 3:08 > > ????: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and > communication > > > > Right, Marx was himself well aware of this difference. My point is that > we have begin to talk about ?the start? of Marx?s analysis, and about its > ?stages,? but these should not be equated with the order of the treatment > in Capital. > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden nden@mira.net>> wrote: > > > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm > > > > Of course the method of presentation must differ in form > > from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the > > material in detail, to analyse its different forms of > > development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only > > after this work is done, can the actual movement be > > adequately described. If this is done successfully, if > > the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as > > in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a > > mere a priori construction. > > > > Andy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > > Seems to me that if we?re going to talk about the details of Marx?s > analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. The two have > virtually opposite organizations; it?s clear that the order of presentation > in Capital was not the order of analysis. > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Thu Oct 26 04:11:02 2017 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 11:11:02 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVu?= =?utf-8?q?ted_activity_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> <630D49CF-00CD-463E-A9B1-1E2924FCE197@uniandes.edu.co> <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> <6B0A96B7-3ACE-43E8-8CFC-3AD05568269A@uniandes.edu.co> <919379338.1678471.1508585766999@mail.yahoo.com> <1508933013877.70037@iped.uio.no> <1700408066.6258290.1508959180079@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1948551203.6903063.1509016262347@mail.yahoo.com> And that BASE also soon collapsed. And Mike Cole told rejuvenators to stop huggling for it was just three Heads of States that gathered together to announce disintegration in the absence of People. And now on the Website of the Cultural Historical Psychology to which both of us subscribe (in particular Sasha and Romanov's dialogue which I have preserved) , they talk of the state of affairs. And that will be very interesting if one knew if the collapse was just due to the belated opportunity of blossoming of this NEW BASE. It's so strange for me that people by UNITY soon gather unity in base and not unity in superstructure. Unity in economics and not unity in culture as defined or unity in their take on both. Alfredo and I agreed on non-selection of one to the exclusion of the other not as representatives of anyone person. I'd read this piece. I read it again. And in capacity of a layman who's not been schooled to essentially know the difference between theorization in syllogistic understanding and dialectical understanding , I will try to provide a very modest answer to a globally known full scholar. If I wrote not just those measures , I didn't mean 'workering doctrinaires only' ; I meant the necessity of going to details as , for example , laid down in the article , certainly , not without considerations. BTW , I have the article but not Eugene's summary. I could not get it through researchgate. I'd like to have it , too. Best Haydi From: mike cole To: Haydi Zulfei ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" ; Eugene Matusov Sent: Thursday, 26 October 2017, 3:45:45 Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Amen to the goals you set for a democratic education, Haydi.?It seems that the work of Bibler is relevant to the discussion. Here is a summary thatEugene has made available through research gate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247887341_A_Few_Words_About_Bibler's_Dialogics_The_School_of_the_Dialogue_of_Cultures_Conception_and_Curriculum. mike On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:19 PM, wrote: Dear Alfredo,all, First I hope there'll always be relief and rest and comfort at home and at everybody's so that all of us can feel happy and hopeful! Second the attached could get us closer to the key as defined as concrete in democratic pedagogy. So far there must have appeared having gone into extremes. Experience has shown that sticking to specific ideas as the definite , the inalienable , the merely genuine legitimate , the uncompromisable , the MY ever truth , even from the side of the most learned ones , could in all evidence harm our discussions and lead to dogma-nourishing. Marx also explicitly advises more and more reading and delving into matters. Providing transitional space will smack of rationality wit and wisdom not ever-drawbacks , surrender , self-deceit or a trait to one's cause.? What you have so far referred to on many occasions , that is , what will come out of all this process of negotiation , discussion , polemic quarreling , etc. is , I think , already at hand. Even at the most advanced countries the macrosocial planning and programming on the part of the Global Capital has put all educational practitioners at a defensive and a stop-to-be position and at risk of regression , drawback and humiliation and losing of all that's been victorious to this point of time in the hope of capturing and invading even our remotest strongholds. It's not that we can summarize it in just non-rote learning or a ban on monopolistic aristocratic advantageous education or being cautious and on the alert of non-allowance of giving permit to learners in theory devoid of practice or the positivistic preoccupation and dealing with factual procedures or statistical numerical bemusing or qual-free quantification in non-acceptance of plausible conceptualizaion and theorization. Our in-class tracking should have a glance at and be quite in harmony with what all combatants of the large globe bear on their shoulders so that peace , all-embracing equality , brotherhood , non-violence , tolerance and co-existence in exaltation and meritocracy are obtained ACTUALLY. Thanks! Best Haydi? ? From: Alfredo Jornet Gil To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" ; Mike Cole ; ivan-dgf ; Martin John Packer ; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? ; Alexander Surmava Sent: Wednesday, 25 October 2017, 15:33:42 Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Dear Sasha, all,? apologies for late response, as we've had some health issues at?home that fortunately?are now dissipating but which have limited participation anywhere else than home life.? The real need of democratic pedagogy. That sounds like a concrete aspect to begin moving on to what we had hoped at the beginning of this conversation: how is this all gonna be of practical (real) relevance to us and not only armchair discussion. So,?in what sense is this 'real,' and is this a 'need'? (I am not addressing Sasha alone, I am addressing any and everyone)? Alfredo ? From: Alexander Surmava Sent: 21 October 2017 13:36 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole; Alfredo Jornet Gil; ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? Subject: ???: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication?Dear Martin,I think that if we're going to discuss the method of Marx, then it is better to do it discussing his most mature work. That is evidently "Das Kapital" and Ilyenkov's monograph "Dialectics of the abstract and concrete in theoretical thinking". I am aware that there is a point of view that the position of Marx as a humanist was adequately presented in Gr?ndrisse, whereas the humanistic core of Marx's theory was allegedly lost in ?Das Kapital?. Accordingly, Marxism is better to study with the help of Gr?ndrisse, and not with the help of ?Das Kapital?. Along with Ilyenkov I do not share this view.I'm afraid that the discussion of this topic would take us too far from our psychological themes. I think that we should not get stuck in discussing the order of "steps", but immediately put our foot on the first "step" so that after that try to rise from it to the second, and so on ...?Taking into account my not young age, it seems to me that at least for me, it's time to move on from the discussion of the method to the discussion of the subject, from the preparation to thinking, to the thinking as such. Especially because the Method can not be studied before and regardless of the study of the very subject. Perhaps this seems paradoxical, but it is a paradox only for those who are not familiar with the dialectic of Spinoza and Marx.?Meanwhile, instead of discussing the question - what is activity, or what is the psyche - we continue to carry water in a sieve, discussing the singular or plural of the term activity. Without a doubt, this topic is very useful for translators from Russian (or German) language to English, but theoretically it is not very informative. And besides, we are convinced that Andy Blunden completely exhausted this topic a few years ago.?Much more interesting would be to discuss the question: what is the justification to declare Vygotsky the founder of activity theory. Where, in any of his works, Vygotsky introduces the concept of activity, not just uses the term ?activity? in the theoretical contexts in which it is used habitually by idealistic psychology. ?The activity (or activities) of consciousness?, ?the activity (or activities) of mental functions?, ?speech activity (or activities)?, the concrete activities of the personality?- all this has nothing to do with object-oriented activity, with Spinoza and Marx.?It seems to me that our main mistake is that we are discussing the subtleties of understanding the categories of activity by Vygotsky and Leontyev, whereas we need something different. It is necessary to try to formulate OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of the activity, proceeding from THE REAL NEED OF THE PRACTICE OF DEMOCRATIC PEDAGOGY.It is impossible to understand activity based on Vygotsky's ideas, because there was no such theoretical category in his theoretical system of views. AN Leontiev introduces a category of object-oriented activity into psychology, but his theory is of little use for solving practical problems too, for saying ?A?, Leontyev never said ?B?. Having proposed the principle of activity as the universal basis of the psychological theory, its germ cell AN Leontiev did not go further failing to concretize this correctly chosen abstract category.Once again, from thehobby group of lovers of Vygotsky, with his "?ultural-?istorical Psychology" and AN Leontyev with his "Psychological Theory of Activity" we all have to become community of researchers developing fundamentally new approaches to education, based on dialectical, revolutionary method of Marx.For the realization of this dream, it is necessary to begin not so much - to learn to listen to each other... :-)Sincerely,Sasha ??: Martin John Packer ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" ??????????: ???????, 20 ??????? 2017 3:08 ????: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Right, Marx was himself well aware of this difference. My point is that we have begin to talk about ?the start? of Marx?s analysis, and about its ?stages,? but these should not be equated with the order of the treatment in Capital. Martin On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: https://www.marxists.org/ archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3. htm ? Of course the method of presentation must differ in form ? from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the ? material in detail, to analyse its different forms of ? development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only ? after this work is done, can the actual movement be ? adequately described. If this is done successfully, if ? the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as ? in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a ? mere a priori construction. Andy ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics. org/ablunden/index.htm On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: Seems to me that if we?re going to talk about the details of Marx?s analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. The two have virtually opposite organizations; it?s clear that the order of presentation in Capital was not the order of analysis. Martin From jamesma320@gmail.com Thu Oct 26 05:59:36 2017 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 13:59:36 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog?= =?utf-8?q?Object_oriented_activity_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> <630D49CF-00CD-463E-A9B1-1E2924FCE197@uniandes.edu.co> <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> <6B0A96B7-3ACE-43E8-8CFC-3AD05568269A@uniandes.edu.co> <919379338.1678471.1508585766999@mail.yahoo.com> <1508933013877.70037@iped.uio.no> <1311730113.6439834.1508973202950@mail.yahoo.com> <6e7d87e2-b3e7-5b41-1175-04c13dd1d78c@mira.net> Message-ID: David, sounds like you're talking about "privilege access"? The video brought back a lot of memories of my childhood! James On 26 October 2017 at 11:55, David Kellogg wrote: > All Vygotsky says is that thinking is represented in the brain differently > than immediate sensation. Vygotsky didn't have access to MRI scans or > computerized tomography. In fact these can and do distinguish between verbs > of sensation and verbs of verbal report. But what Vygotsky did have access > to is the grammar of reported speech. > > In all languages that I know, it is possible to quote the words of another > person. I can say, for example: > > Sasha says "Obviously, this has nothing to do with Marxism". > > I can also quote the thoughts of another person. > > Sasha thinks, "Obviously, this has nothing to with Marxism." > > I can do this even when there are no actual words, just as I can read > Sasha's thoughts without him speaking them. > > However, in no languages that Iknow is it possible to quote the actions or > the immediate sensations of another person. I cannot say, for example: > > "Sasha stood "Up"" > > "Sasha felt 'Cold'". > > When I try to say this, what I end up saying is that Sasha thought a word > meaning, not that he felt an immediate sensation. > > In Chinese we say, "The speaker has gone, and the tea is cold." This is > originally a line from the revolutionary opera "Shajiabang", about a woman > who runs a teahouse used by communists. In this scene, the children are > acting out a visit by a Chinese quisling and a Japanese officer; they > accuse the woman of communist sympathies, and she says that all people who > come to her teahouse have sympathies, but as soon as they go, their tea is > cold, and she throws it out (6:13). > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUYvyRMvCNU > > There is no way, as Wittgenstein says, to feel the toothache of another > person; all you can do is to describe it in thoughts and words. > Paradoxically, when we want to share thoughts, we can do it "immediately", > because thoughts and words have already made the dialectical leap--the leap > from idiolect into a sharable dialect. > > David Kellogg > > > > > > other verbs). First of all, notice that he is saying that > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > That is a tendency within our heritage, David. Some people > > take the category of "labour" rather than "activity" to be > > the key category. > > > > As I understand it, "labour," or "production," is activity > > in the case where production and consumption and socially > > mediated, but I think that activity whose object is an > > object of consumption should be included within the basic > > category of Activity Theory, even if there are important > > psychological differences. Some are also concerned to > > separate symbolic activity, such as speech or supervision of > > labour, from the fundamental category, giving tool-use > > priority over sign use, and use of the term "labour" > > suggests that. Vygotsky expressed himself firmly against > > this move. > > > > So use of "activity" rather than "labour" or vice versa does > > reflect certain tensions within the tradition. > > > > Andy > > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Tool%20and% > > 20Sign%20in%20Vygotskys%20Development.pdf > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 26/10/2017 6:14 PM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. wrote: > > > Xmca seems to have a workerist tendency operating - for myself I have > > always found that the work of generalising (in Vygotsky's sense) is a > > labour of object-oriented activity. But that's just me > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ > > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Alexander Surmava > > > Sent: 26 October 2017 00:13 > > > To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole; > > ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] ???: Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity > > and communication > > > > > > Dear Alfredo, > > > > > > thank you for your very accurate reaction. You definitely noticed the > > main thing. Today, in the era of globalization and developed > technologies, > > the class antagonism between exploited people and their exploiters, > between > > capital and wage labor, assumes the appearance of the opposite between > > different ethnic groups and cultures. Capital itself has always been a > > global phenomenon, and a class of capitalists - a cosmopolitan class. > > Putting military overcoats on workers and sending them to fight and to > kill > > each other under nationalist slogans, they continued to cooperate with > > their exploitation colleagues, somehow continuing to receive dividends > from > > their enterprises located on the territory of their "enemy." Today > Putin's > > friends and henchmen who curse the "insidious West" take their capitals > to > > this West, buy property there, send their children to study there and go > > there themselves to rest and be treated. And today Mr. Poroshenko - the > > president of the country that was subje > > > cted to the aggression of the neighboring state, owns chocolate > > factories located on the territory of this country. > > > In Russia, and in Western Europe, and in the United States, the policy > > of the ruling classes is based today on inciting against each other the > > working people of different ethnic groups and confessions, on their > > juxtaposition of each other as superior and second-class creatures. > > > And as an ideological justification of the enmity incited by the ruling > > class towards working people of a different skin color, working people > > speaking a different language and praying to other gods, public > > consciousness is infected with totally false ideas constructed allegedly > on > > a scientific basis. All this is not new. One hundred years ago, the > > dominant ideology rested on undisguised racism. Today, the same task is > > being solved by more sophisticated means, appealing to so-called > "cultural" > > differences. Although the old ideology appealing to biological > differences > > has not disappeared. Only today it is covered by a new, molecular-genetic > > argumentation, an appeal not only to livestock farming, but also to the > > "psychology of culture". > > > It is possible to unmask this bourgeois lie, not only in words but also > > in deeds, if we can understand that human development is not the ability > of > > individuals to experience (perejivat?) the meaning of words, but to be > > genuine subjects of object-oriented activity, the subjects of labor. > > > If we stay on Vygotsky's theoretical positions, which believed that the > > human psyche begins with acts of sensation that thinking is just a verbal > > "generalization" of the material that our senses deliver to us, then any > > wretched ideologist, with a well-suspended language, will seem to us the > > owner of perfect wisdom, whereas a worker or a peasant doing his own > work, > > but not possessing the skill of ideological verbosity, will look > something > > inferior. > > > If someone is shocked by such an evaluation of Vygotsky's theory, open > > his "Thinking and speach" and reread this key paragraph. > > > > > > > > > "It has been said that the dialectical leap is not only a transition > > from matter that is incapable of sensation to matter that is capable of > > sensation, but a transition from sensation to thought. This implies that > > reality is reflected in consciousness in a qualitatively different way in > > thinking than it is in immediate sensation. This qualitative difference > is > > primarily a function of a generalized reflection of reality. Therefore, > > generalization in word meaning is an act of thinking in the true sense of > > the word. At the same time, however, meaning is an inseparable part of > the > > word; it belongs not only to the domain of thought but to the domain of > > speech. A word without meaning is not a word, but an empty sound. A word > > without meaning no longer belongs to the domain of speech. One cannot say > > of word meaning what we said earlier of the elements of the word taken > > separately. Is word meaning speech or is it thought? It is both at one > and > > the same time; it is a unit of verbal thi > > > nking. It is obvious, then, that our method must be that of semantic > > analysis. Our method must rely on the analysts of the meaningful aspect > of > > speech; it must be a method for studying verbal meaning. > > > > > > We can reasonably anticipate that this method will produce answers to > > our questions concerning the relationship between thinking and speech > > because this relationship is already contained in the unit of analysis. > In > > studying the function, structure, and development of this unit, we will > > come to understand a great deal that is of direct relevance to the > problem > > of the relationship of thinking to speech and to the nature of verbal > > thinking." > > > > > > > > > Obviously, such an "understanding" of thinking has not the slightest > > relation to either Spinozism or Marxism. It is a naive attempt to combine > > eclectically the old ideas of empirical psychology with the school > textbook > > of formal logic. > > > (Of course, I understand that this paragraph needs more detailed > > theoretical analysis. And I will not slow down this analysis in the very > > near future. In the meantime, I only note that Vygotsky's assertion that > > "generalization is a verbal act of thought" is a maximally aphoristic > > expression of his idealistic position. For us, as for the materialists, > the > > generalization is a practical act and its instrument is the instrument of > > labor. And the initial and universal instrument of generalization is not > a > > sign, but an instrument of labor. So the ax is a means of generalizing > the > > properties of wood. The ax is, in the same time, a means of analyzing all > > the same wood. All this is obvious, looking through the optics of > > Spinoza-Ilyenkov, that is, simply a Marxist definition of ideality.) > > Theoretical conclusions made by Vygotsky from the results of Luria's trip > > to Uzbekistan logically follow from the above. The Uzbek illiterate > > peasant, not from school textbooks, but from his own labo > > > r experience knowing how the earth, aryk, water, hoe and melon are > > connected, and therefore refusing to produce meaningless formal logical > > operations with words denoting these things, is declared a primitive > > thinking by "complexes". Simultaneously, any school crap who knows how to > > pronounce definitions from his textbook and familiar with the melon only > > when it is bought, washed and cut by his mommy, is declared the bearer of > > scientific consciousness. > > > > > > Only in this way can we, as psychologists and teachers, come to the > > value of instruments of labor, not only for the distribution of material > > wealth, but also for the distribution of the spiritual wealth, for the > > distribution of the ability to think, for the distribution of culture. > Only > > in this way can we approach the Marxist definition of culture as the > > totality of the means of its object-oriented activity accumulated by > > humankind the means of its labor. Only on the path of such based on idea > of > > object-oriented activity understanding of man we will be able to get out > of > > the deadlock of the semiotic, with its symbolic arbitrariness. > > > Vygotsky's merit is that he was the first who seriously set the task of > > creating a Marxist psychology and his merit can be considered that the > > first real step in this direction was made by his friend and student AN > > Leontiev.Our task is to continue their mission. > > > Sasha > > > > > > > > > > > > ??: Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" ; > > Mike Cole ; ivan-dgf ; Martin > > John Packer ; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? < > > haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>; Alexander Surmava < > > alexander.surmava@yahoo.com> > > > ??????????: ?????, 25 ??????? 2017 15:03 > > > ????: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and > > communication > > > > > > #yiv0081188988 #yiv0081188988 -- P {margin-top:0px;margin-bottom: > 0px;}#yiv0081188988 > > Dear Sasha, all, > > > > > > apologies for late response, as we've had some health issues at home > > that fortunately are now dissipating but which have limited participation > > anywhere else than home life. > > > > > > The real need of democratic pedagogy. That sounds like a concrete > aspect > > to begin moving on to what we had hoped at the beginning of this > > conversation: how is this all gonna be of practical (real) relevance to > us > > and not only armchair discussion. So, in what sense is this 'real,' and > is > > this a 'need'? (I am not addressing Sasha alone, I am addressing any and > > everyone) > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > From: Alexander Surmava > > > Sent: 21 October 2017 13:36 > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole; Alfredo Jornet Gil; > > ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? > > > Subject: ???: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity > > and communication Dear Martin,I think that if we're going to discuss the > > method of Marx, then it is better to do it discussing his most mature > work. > > That is evidently "Das Kapital" and Ilyenkov's monograph "Dialectics of > the > > abstract and concrete in theoretical thinking". I am aware that there is > a > > point of view that the position of Marx as a humanist was adequately > > presented in Gr?ndrisse, whereas the humanistic core of Marx's theory was > > allegedly lost in ?Das Kapital?. Accordingly, Marxism is better to study > > with the help of Gr?ndrisse, and not with the help of ?Das Kapital?. > Along > > with Ilyenkov I do not share this view.I'm afraid that the discussion of > > this topic would take us too far from our psychological themes. I think > > that we should not get stuck in discussing the order of "steps", but > > immediately put our foot on the first "step" so that after that try to > rise > > from it to the seco > > > nd, and so on ... Taking into account my not young age, it seems to me > > that at least for me, it's time to move on from the discussion of the > > method to the discussion of the subject, from the preparation to > thinking, > > to the thinking as such. Especially because the Method can not be studied > > before and regardless of the study of the very subject. Perhaps this > seems > > paradoxical, but it is a paradox only for those who are not familiar with > > the dialectic of Spinoza and Marx. Meanwhile, instead of discussing the > > question - what is activity, or what is the psyche - we continue to carry > > water in a sieve, discussing the singular or plural of the term activity. > > Without a doubt, this topic is very useful for translators from Russian > (or > > German) language to English, but theoretically it is not very > informative. > > And besides, we are convinced that Andy Blunden completely exhausted this > > topic a few years ago. Much more interesting would be to discuss the > > question: what is the justificati > > > on to declare Vygotsky the founder of activity theory. Where, in any > > > of his works, Vygotsky introduces the concept of activity, not just > uses > > the term ?activity? in the theoretical contexts in which it is used > > habitually by idealistic psychology. ?The activity (or activities) of > > consciousness?, ?the activity (or activities) of mental functions?, > ?speech > > activity (or activities)?, the concrete activities of the personality?- > all > > this has nothing to do with object-oriented activity, with Spinoza and > > Marx. It seems to me that our main mistake is that we are discussing the > > subtleties of understanding the categories of activity by Vygotsky and > > Leontyev, whereas we need something different. It is necessary to try to > > formulate OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of the activity, proceeding from THE REAL > > NEED OF THE PRACTICE OF DEMOCRATIC PEDAGOGY.It is impossible to > understand > > activity based on Vygotsky's ideas, because there was no such theoretical > > category in his theoretical system of views. AN Leontiev introduces a > > category of object-oriented a > > > ctivity into psychology, but his theory is of little use for solving > > practical problems too, for saying ?A?, Leontyev never said ?B?. Having > > proposed the principle of activity as the universal basis of the > > psychological theory, its germ cell AN Leontiev did not go further > failing > > to concretize this correctly chosen abstract category.Once again, from > > thehobby group of lovers of Vygotsky, with his "?ultural-?istorical > > Psychology" and AN Leontyev with his "Psychological Theory of Activity" > we > > all have to become community of researchers developing fundamentally new > > approaches to education, based on dialectical, revolutionary method of > > Marx.For the realization of this dream, it is necessary to begin not so > > much - to learn to listen to each other... :-)Sincerely,Sasha > > > > > > ??: Martin John Packer > > > ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > ??????????: ???????, 20 ??????? 2017 3:08 > > > ????: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and > > communication > > > > > > Right, Marx was himself well aware of this difference. My point is that > > we have begin to talk about ?the start? of Marx?s analysis, and about its > > ?stages,? but these should not be equated with the order of the treatment > > in Capital. > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden ablu > > nden@mira.net>> wrote: > > > > > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm > > > > > > Of course the method of presentation must differ in form > > > from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the > > > material in detail, to analyse its different forms of > > > development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only > > > after this work is done, can the actual movement be > > > adequately described. If this is done successfully, if > > > the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as > > > in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a > > > mere a priori construction. > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Andy Blunden > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > > > Seems to me that if we?re going to talk about the details of Marx?s > > analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. The two > have > > virtually opposite organizations; it?s clear that the order of > presentation > > in Capital was not the order of analysis. > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Thu Oct 26 08:45:58 2017 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 15:45:58 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiAgUmU6INCe0YLQsjogUmU6INCe0YLQsjogUmU6?= =?utf-8?q?_Object_oriented_activity_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <1508190552093.73064@iped .uio.no> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> <630D49CF-00CD-463E-A9B1-1E2924FCE197@uniandes.edu.co> <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> <6B0A96B7-3ACE-43E8-8CFC-3AD05568269A@uniandes.edu.co> <919379338.1678471.1508585766999@mail.yahoo.com> <1508933013877.70037@iped.uio.no> <1311730113.6439834.1508973202950@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <543576401.7261864.1509032758740@mail.yahoo.com> Dear David,All major participants know about this and many other instances. Just I don't know why we should level so much accusation against Vygotsky on both sides of the matter. What Vygotsky says here is to see THE WORD AND BEHIND THE WORD and that's perfectly crystal clear. Many others including Leontiev and Ilyenko and Marx also refer to this point on numerous occasions. Until recently, a major impediment to the study of conceptshas been a lack of experimental methods that would allow the investigation oftheir formation and theirpsychological nature.Traditional methods for studying concepts fall into twobasic groups. The first istypified by what is called the method of definition. Thismethod involves the study offully developed and fully formed concepts through the use ofverbal definitions. Despite its wide acceptance, this method suffers from twofundamental inadequacies thatmake it unreliable for any realistic investigation ofconcept formation. 1. This method deals with the results of the completedprocess of concept formation, with the ready-made product of that process. Whenwe use this approach, we arenot looking at the dynamics of the process itself, at itsdevelopment, its course, its beginning and its end. This method is aninvestigation of the product not of the processthat leads to its formation. Consequently, in studyingdefinitions of developed concepts, we are frequently dealing less with thechild's thinking than with his reproduction of fully formed knowledge anddefinitions. Thus, when we study the child's definitions of a particularconcept, we are studying his knowledge or experience and thelevel of his verbal development more than we are studyinghis thinking in the truesense of the word. 2. The method of definition depends almost exclusively onthe word. It overlooks the fact that, for the child in particular, the conceptis linked with *sensual material*, the perception and transformation of which*gives rise* to the concept itself. Thissensual material and the word are *both necessary* for theconcept's development. Divorced from this material, the word transfers theprocess involved in the concept'sdefinition *to a purely verbal plane*, a plane that is notcharacteristic of the child. Whenthis method is used, we therefore rarely succeed inidentifying the relationship thatexists between the meaning the child attributes to the wordin a purely verbal definition and *the word's real meaning* in the process of *itsliving relationship to the objective reality it designates*.When this method is used, that which is most essential tothe concept (i.e., its relationship to reality) remains unexplored. When we attemptto approach the meaningof the word through other words in this way, what wediscover would better be attributed to the relationships among word familiesthat have already been learned ormastered than to a true reflection of the nature of thechild's concepts.***The second group of methods used in the study of conceptsattempts to overcomethe inadequacies of the purely verbal approach of the methodof definition by focusingon the mental functions and processes that underlie theformation of concepts. Thesemethods are concerned with the functions and processes thatunderlie the transformation of the concrete experience from which the conceptis born. Here, the child is presented with the task of isolating some generalfeature from several concrete impressions, of isolating or abstracting thisfeature from others that are perceptually intertwined with it. The child ispresented with the task of generalizing or abstracting thisfeature. The inadequacy of this second group of methods is that theyreplace a complexsynthetic process with an elementary one that constitutesonly one part of the whole.*The role of the word or sign in the process of conceptformation is ignored*. The resultis that the process of abstraction is radicallyoversimplified. It is torn away from itsrelationship with the word. This relationship, however, isfundamental to the processof concept formation. It is, indeed, the determining featureof that process.Thus, both of these traditional methods for studyingconcepts divorce the wordfrom objective material. One begins by isolating the wordfrom the objective material.The other begins by isolating the objective material fromthe word. The development of an experimental method that couldadequately reflect theprocess of concept formation by including both features ofthe process, by includingthe material on the basis of which the concept is worked outand the word throughwhich it arises, represented an important step forward inthe study of concepts. We will not dwell on the complex history of this new method.We will only notethat its introduction opened up an entirely new plane forthe researcher. This methodcreated the potential for studying the process of conceptformation rather than merelystudying the fully developed concept. To say when a culture is established , there will be no need to repeatedly turning one's attention to the PROCESS rather than the product , is also naivte. Science cannot routinely take steps or get involved in taking leaps 'limping on ONE'. Best Haydi From: "WEBSTER, DAVID S." To: 'Alexander Surmava' ; "'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'" Sent: Thursday, 26 October 2017, 10:45:38 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Xmca seems to have a workerist tendency operating - for myself I have always found that the work of generalising (in Vygotsky's sense) is a labour of object-oriented activity. But that's just me -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Alexander Surmava Sent: 26 October 2017 00:13 To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole; ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? Subject: [Xmca-l] ???: Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Dear Alfredo, thank you for your very accurate reaction. You definitely noticed the main thing. Today, in the era of globalization and developed technologies, the class antagonism between exploited people and their exploiters, between capital and wage labor, assumes the appearance of the opposite between different ethnic groups and cultures. Capital itself has always been a global phenomenon, and a class of capitalists - a cosmopolitan class. Putting military overcoats on workers and sending them to fight and to kill each other under nationalist slogans, they continued to cooperate with their exploitation colleagues, somehow continuing to receive dividends from their enterprises located on the territory of their "enemy." Today Putin's friends and henchmen who curse the "insidious West" take their capitals to this West, buy property there, send their children to study there and go there themselves to rest and be treated. And today Mr. Poroshenko - the president of the country that was subjected to the aggression of the neighboring state, owns chocolate factories located on the territory of this country. In Russia, and in Western Europe, and in the United States, the policy of the ruling classes is based today on inciting against each other the working people of different ethnic groups and confessions, on their juxtaposition of each other as superior and second-class creatures. And as an ideological justification of the enmity incited by the ruling class towards working people of a different skin color, working people speaking a different language and praying to other gods, public consciousness is infected with totally false ideas constructed allegedly on a scientific basis. All this is not new. One hundred years ago, the dominant ideology rested on undisguised racism. Today, the same task is being solved by more sophisticated means, appealing to so-called "cultural" differences. Although the old ideology appealing to biological differences has not disappeared. Only today it is covered by a new, molecular-genetic argumentation, an appeal not only to livestock farming, but also to the "psychology of culture". It is possible to unmask this bourgeois lie, not only in words but also in deeds, if we can understand that human development is not the ability of individuals to experience (perejivat?) the meaning of words, but to be genuine subjects of object-oriented activity, the subjects of labor. If we stay on Vygotsky's theoretical positions, which believed that the human psyche begins with acts of sensation that thinking is just a verbal "generalization" of the material that our senses deliver to us, then any wretched ideologist, with a well-suspended language, will seem to us the owner of perfect wisdom, whereas a worker or a peasant doing his own work, but not possessing the skill of ideological verbosity, will look something inferior. If someone is shocked by such an evaluation of Vygotsky's theory, open his "Thinking and speach" and reread this key paragraph. "It has been said that the dialectical leap is not only a transition from matter that is incapable of sensation to matter that is capable of sensation, but a transition from sensation to thought. This implies that reality is reflected in consciousness in a qualitatively different way in thinking than it is in immediate sensation. This qualitative difference is primarily a function of a generalized reflection of reality. Therefore, generalization in word meaning is an act of thinking in the true sense of the word. At the same time, however, meaning is an inseparable part of the word; it belongs not only to the domain of thought but to the domain of speech. A word without meaning is not a word, but an empty sound. A word without meaning no longer belongs to the domain of speech. One cannot say of word meaning what we said earlier of the elements of the word taken separately. Is word meaning speech or is it thought? It is both at one and the same time; it is a unit of verbal thinking. It is obvious, then, that our method must be that of semantic analysis. Our method must rely on the analysts of the meaningful aspect of speech; it must be a method for studying verbal meaning. We can reasonably anticipate that this method will produce answers to our questions concerning the relationship between thinking and speech because this relationship is already contained in the unit of analysis. In studying the function, structure, and development of this unit, we will come to understand a great deal that is of direct relevance to the problem of the relationship of thinking to speech and to the nature of verbal thinking." Obviously, such an "understanding" of thinking has not the slightest relation to either Spinozism or Marxism. It is a naive attempt to combine?eclectically the old ideas of empirical psychology with the school textbook of formal logic. (Of course, I understand that this paragraph needs more detailed theoretical analysis. And I will not slow down this analysis in the very near future.?In the meantime, I only note that Vygotsky's assertion that "generalization is a verbal act of thought" is a maximally aphoristic expression of his idealistic position. For us, as for the materialists, the generalization is a practical act and its instrument is the instrument of labor. And the initial and universal instrument of generalization is not a sign, but an instrument of labor. So the ax is a means of generalizing the properties of wood. The ax is, in the same time, a means of analyzing all the same wood. All this is obvious, looking through the optics of Spinoza-Ilyenkov, that is, simply a Marxist definition of ideality.) Theoretical conclusions made by Vygotsky from the results of Luria's trip to Uzbekistan logically follow from the above. The Uzbek illiterate peasant, not from school textbooks, but from his own labor experience knowing how the earth, aryk, water, hoe and melon are connected, and therefore refusing to produce meaningless formal logical operations with words denoting these things, is declared a primitive thinking by "complexes". Simultaneously, any school crap who knows how to pronounce definitions from his textbook and familiar with the melon only when it is bought, washed and cut by his mommy, is declared the bearer of scientific consciousness. Only in this way can we, as psychologists and teachers, come to the value of instruments of labor, not only for the distribution of material wealth, but also for the distribution of the spiritual wealth, for the distribution of the ability to think, for the distribution of culture. Only in this way can we approach the Marxist definition of culture as the totality of the means of its object-oriented activity accumulated by humankind the means of its labor. Only on the path of such based on idea of object-oriented activity understanding of man we will be able to get out of the deadlock of the semiotic, with its symbolic arbitrariness. Vygotsky's merit is that he was the first who seriously set the task of creating a Marxist psychology and his merit can be considered that the first real step in this direction was made by his friend and student AN Leontiev.Our task is to continue their mission. Sasha ? ? ? ??: Alfredo Jornet Gil ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" ; Mike Cole ; ivan-dgf ; Martin John Packer ; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? ; Alexander Surmava ??????????: ?????, 25 ??????? 2017 15:03 ????: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication ? #yiv0081188988 #yiv0081188988 -- P {margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;}#yiv0081188988 Dear Sasha, all,? apologies for late response, as we've had some health issues at?home that fortunately?are now dissipating but which have limited participation anywhere else than home life.? The real need of democratic pedagogy. That sounds like a concrete aspect to begin moving on to what we had hoped at the beginning of this conversation: how is this all gonna be of practical (real) relevance to us and not only armchair discussion. So,?in what sense is this 'real,' and is this a 'need'? (I am not addressing Sasha alone, I am addressing any and everyone)? Alfredo ? From: Alexander Surmava Sent: 21 October 2017 13:36 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole; Alfredo Jornet Gil; ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? Subject: ???: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication?Dear Martin,I think that if we're going to discuss the method of Marx, then it is better to do it discussing his most mature work. That is evidently "Das Kapital" and Ilyenkov's monograph "Dialectics of the abstract and concrete in theoretical thinking". I am aware that there is a point of view that the position of Marx as a humanist was adequately presented in Gr?ndrisse, whereas the humanistic core of Marx's theory was allegedly lost in ?Das Kapital?. Accordingly, Marxism is better to study with the help of Gr?ndrisse, and not with the help of ?Das Kapital?. Along with Ilyenkov I do not share this view.I'm afraid that the discussion of this topic would take us too far from our psychological themes. I think that we should not get stuck in discussing the order of "steps", but immediately put our foot on the first "step" so that after that try to rise from it to the second, and so on ...?Taking into account my not young age, it seems to me that at least for me, it's time to move on from the discussion of the method to the discussion of the subject, from the preparation to thinking, to the thinking as such. Especially because the Method can not be studied before and regardless of the study of the very subject. Perhaps this seems paradoxical, but it is a paradox only for those who are not familiar with the dialectic of Spinoza and Marx.?Meanwhile, instead of discussing the question - what is activity, or what is the psyche - we continue to carry water in a sieve, discussing the singular or plural of the term activity. Without a doubt, this topic is very useful for translators from Russian (or German) language to English, but theoretically it is not very informative. And besides, we are convinced that Andy Blunden completely exhausted this topic a few years ago.?Much more interesting would be to discuss the question: what is the justification to declare Vygotsky the founder of activity theory. Where, in any of his works, Vygotsky introduces the concept of activity, not just uses the term ?activity? in the theoretical contexts in which it is used habitually by idealistic psychology. ?The activity (or activities) of consciousness?, ?the activity (or activities) of mental functions?, ?speech activity (or activities)?, the concrete activities of the personality?- all this has nothing to do with object-oriented activity, with Spinoza and Marx.?It seems to me that our main mistake is that we are discussing the subtleties of understanding the categories of activity by Vygotsky and Leontyev, whereas we need something different. It is necessary to try to formulate OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of the activity, proceeding from THE REAL NEED OF THE PRACTICE OF DEMOCRATIC PEDAGOGY.It is impossible to understand activity based on Vygotsky's ideas, because there was no such theoretical category in his theoretical system of views. AN Leontiev introduces a category of object-oriented activity into psychology, but his theory is of little use for solving practical problems too, for saying ?A?, Leontyev never said ?B?. Having proposed the principle of activity as the universal basis of the psychological theory, its germ cell AN Leontiev did not go further failing to concretize this correctly chosen abstract category.Once again, from thehobby group of lovers of Vygotsky, with his "?ultural-?istorical Psychology" and AN Leontyev with his "Psychological Theory of Activity" we all have to become community of researchers developing fundamentally new approaches to education, based on dialectical, revolutionary method of Marx.For the realization of this dream, it is necessary to begin not so much - to learn to listen to each other... :-)Sincerely,Sasha ??: Martin John Packer ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" ??????????: ???????, 20 ??????? 2017 3:08 ????: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and communication Right, Marx was himself well aware of this difference. My point is that we have begin to talk about ?the start? of Marx?s analysis, and about its ?stages,? but these should not be equated with the order of the treatment in Capital. Martin On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm ? Of course the method of presentation must differ in form ? from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the ? material in detail, to analyse its different forms of ? development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only ? after this work is done, can the actual movement be ? adequately described. If this is done successfully, if ? the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as ? in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a ? mere a priori construction. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: Seems to me that if we?re going to talk about the details of Marx?s analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. The two have virtually opposite organizations; it?s clear that the order of presentation in Capital was not the order of analysis. Martin ? From dkellogg60@gmail.com Thu Oct 26 14:04:04 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 06:04:04 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog?= =?utf-8?q?Object_oriented_activity_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> <630D49CF-00CD-463E-A9B1-1E2924FCE197@uniandes.edu.co> <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> <6B0A96B7-3ACE-43E8-8CFC-3AD05568269A@uniandes.edu.co> <919379338.1678471.1508585766999@mail.yahoo.com> <1508933013877.70037@iped.uio.no> <1311730113.6439834.1508973202950@mail.yahoo.com> <6e7d87e2-b3e7-5b41-1175-04c13dd1d78c@mira.net> Message-ID: Yes, privileged access is not a metaphyiscal, philosophical problem; it's a real, concrete problem for stage actors. It's why Vygotsky takes Stanislavsky's scripts as a kind of model for the human mind in Chapter Seven of Thinking and Speech. How the actor gives the audience access to the plane of thinkings and sayings was never problematic. In Shakespeare's time, there were long "set speeches" to the audience, but the "true feelings" of the character for the character she or he was about to murder or marry had to be conveyed soto voce, in asides. Shakespeare changed all that, and he did it with stagecraft, by dividing the stage into planes representing the mind of the speaker--the foreplane, where Hamlet advances to the front of the stage and speaks feelings to the audience, the midplane for quoting thoughts and words, and the rearplane for actions. This model is essentially the model of the mind we see in Chapter Seven. Alas, only David Tennant, of contemporary Shakespeareans, really understands this: only his Hamlet speaks "To be or not to be" with UPWARD intonation, as if it were a real question, and manipulates the stresses correctly, so that "whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" in the end turns out to be "not to be" while "to take up arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them" turns out to be "to be". Benedict Cumberbatch, by contrast, turns this torrent of emotion back into a fifteenth century set speech and delivers it like a soldier presenting a battle briefing to superior officers with a PPT. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twwntlAlnV0 The Chinese actor is more Brechtian than Stanslavskian (or rather, Brecht was more Chinese than European); the Chinese actor always has the character at arms length, even the character which the actor is conveying (the dialectical leap is between actor and character, not between doing, feeling, thinking and saying). Notice the first part of the video when the various actors are explaining their feelings to audience. They don't have a particular place where they stand to do this, or even a particular intonation for it: it is more often conveyed by their gestures and their eye contact, and by their use of the third person in Chinese, which shows they are addressing the audience rather than their interlocutor.The Chinese actor always stresses the linked quality of feeling and thinking, thinking and doing, while the Western actor tries to convey the dialectical leap. David Kellogg On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 9:59 PM, James Ma wrote: > David, sounds like you're talking about "privilege access"? > > The video brought back a lot of memories of my childhood! > > James > > > > On 26 October 2017 at 11:55, David Kellogg wrote: > > > All Vygotsky says is that thinking is represented in the brain > differently > > than immediate sensation. Vygotsky didn't have access to MRI scans or > > computerized tomography. In fact these can and do distinguish between > verbs > > of sensation and verbs of verbal report. But what Vygotsky did have > access > > to is the grammar of reported speech. > > > > In all languages that I know, it is possible to quote the words of > another > > person. I can say, for example: > > > > Sasha says "Obviously, this has nothing to do with Marxism". > > > > I can also quote the thoughts of another person. > > > > Sasha thinks, "Obviously, this has nothing to with Marxism." > > > > I can do this even when there are no actual words, just as I can read > > Sasha's thoughts without him speaking them. > > > > However, in no languages that Iknow is it possible to quote the actions > or > > the immediate sensations of another person. I cannot say, for example: > > > > "Sasha stood "Up"" > > > > "Sasha felt 'Cold'". > > > > When I try to say this, what I end up saying is that Sasha thought a word > > meaning, not that he felt an immediate sensation. > > > > In Chinese we say, "The speaker has gone, and the tea is cold." This is > > originally a line from the revolutionary opera "Shajiabang", about a > woman > > who runs a teahouse used by communists. In this scene, the children are > > acting out a visit by a Chinese quisling and a Japanese officer; they > > accuse the woman of communist sympathies, and she says that all people > who > > come to her teahouse have sympathies, but as soon as they go, their tea > is > > cold, and she throws it out (6:13). > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUYvyRMvCNU > > > > There is no way, as Wittgenstein says, to feel the toothache of another > > person; all you can do is to describe it in thoughts and words. > > Paradoxically, when we want to share thoughts, we can do it > "immediately", > > because thoughts and words have already made the dialectical leap--the > leap > > from idiolect into a sharable dialect. > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > > > > > other verbs). First of all, notice that he is saying that > > > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > > > That is a tendency within our heritage, David. Some people > > > take the category of "labour" rather than "activity" to be > > > the key category. > > > > > > As I understand it, "labour," or "production," is activity > > > in the case where production and consumption and socially > > > mediated, but I think that activity whose object is an > > > object of consumption should be included within the basic > > > category of Activity Theory, even if there are important > > > psychological differences. Some are also concerned to > > > separate symbolic activity, such as speech or supervision of > > > labour, from the fundamental category, giving tool-use > > > priority over sign use, and use of the term "labour" > > > suggests that. Vygotsky expressed himself firmly against > > > this move. > > > > > > So use of "activity" rather than "labour" or vice versa does > > > reflect certain tensions within the tradition. > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Tool%20and% > > > 20Sign%20in%20Vygotskys%20Development.pdf > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Andy Blunden > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > On 26/10/2017 6:14 PM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. wrote: > > > > Xmca seems to have a workerist tendency operating - for myself I have > > > always found that the work of generalising (in Vygotsky's sense) is a > > > labour of object-oriented activity. But that's just me > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ > > > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Alexander Surmava > > > > Sent: 26 October 2017 00:13 > > > > To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole; > > > ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] ???: Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity > > > and communication > > > > > > > > Dear Alfredo, > > > > > > > > thank you for your very accurate reaction. You definitely noticed the > > > main thing. Today, in the era of globalization and developed > > technologies, > > > the class antagonism between exploited people and their exploiters, > > between > > > capital and wage labor, assumes the appearance of the opposite between > > > different ethnic groups and cultures. Capital itself has always been a > > > global phenomenon, and a class of capitalists - a cosmopolitan class. > > > Putting military overcoats on workers and sending them to fight and to > > kill > > > each other under nationalist slogans, they continued to cooperate with > > > their exploitation colleagues, somehow continuing to receive dividends > > from > > > their enterprises located on the territory of their "enemy." Today > > Putin's > > > friends and henchmen who curse the "insidious West" take their capitals > > to > > > this West, buy property there, send their children to study there and > go > > > there themselves to rest and be treated. And today Mr. Poroshenko - the > > > president of the country that was subje > > > > cted to the aggression of the neighboring state, owns chocolate > > > factories located on the territory of this country. > > > > In Russia, and in Western Europe, and in the United States, the > policy > > > of the ruling classes is based today on inciting against each other the > > > working people of different ethnic groups and confessions, on their > > > juxtaposition of each other as superior and second-class creatures. > > > > And as an ideological justification of the enmity incited by the > ruling > > > class towards working people of a different skin color, working people > > > speaking a different language and praying to other gods, public > > > consciousness is infected with totally false ideas constructed > allegedly > > on > > > a scientific basis. All this is not new. One hundred years ago, the > > > dominant ideology rested on undisguised racism. Today, the same task is > > > being solved by more sophisticated means, appealing to so-called > > "cultural" > > > differences. Although the old ideology appealing to biological > > differences > > > has not disappeared. Only today it is covered by a new, > molecular-genetic > > > argumentation, an appeal not only to livestock farming, but also to the > > > "psychology of culture". > > > > It is possible to unmask this bourgeois lie, not only in words but > also > > > in deeds, if we can understand that human development is not the > ability > > of > > > individuals to experience (perejivat?) the meaning of words, but to be > > > genuine subjects of object-oriented activity, the subjects of labor. > > > > If we stay on Vygotsky's theoretical positions, which believed that > the > > > human psyche begins with acts of sensation that thinking is just a > verbal > > > "generalization" of the material that our senses deliver to us, then > any > > > wretched ideologist, with a well-suspended language, will seem to us > the > > > owner of perfect wisdom, whereas a worker or a peasant doing his own > > work, > > > but not possessing the skill of ideological verbosity, will look > > something > > > inferior. > > > > If someone is shocked by such an evaluation of Vygotsky's theory, > open > > > his "Thinking and speach" and reread this key paragraph. > > > > > > > > > > > > "It has been said that the dialectical leap is not only a transition > > > from matter that is incapable of sensation to matter that is capable of > > > sensation, but a transition from sensation to thought. This implies > that > > > reality is reflected in consciousness in a qualitatively different way > in > > > thinking than it is in immediate sensation. This qualitative difference > > is > > > primarily a function of a generalized reflection of reality. Therefore, > > > generalization in word meaning is an act of thinking in the true sense > of > > > the word. At the same time, however, meaning is an inseparable part of > > the > > > word; it belongs not only to the domain of thought but to the domain of > > > speech. A word without meaning is not a word, but an empty sound. A > word > > > without meaning no longer belongs to the domain of speech. One cannot > say > > > of word meaning what we said earlier of the elements of the word taken > > > separately. Is word meaning speech or is it thought? It is both at one > > and > > > the same time; it is a unit of verbal thi > > > > nking. It is obvious, then, that our method must be that of semantic > > > analysis. Our method must rely on the analysts of the meaningful aspect > > of > > > speech; it must be a method for studying verbal meaning. > > > > > > > > We can reasonably anticipate that this method will produce answers to > > > our questions concerning the relationship between thinking and speech > > > because this relationship is already contained in the unit of analysis. > > In > > > studying the function, structure, and development of this unit, we will > > > come to understand a great deal that is of direct relevance to the > > problem > > > of the relationship of thinking to speech and to the nature of verbal > > > thinking." > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously, such an "understanding" of thinking has not the slightest > > > relation to either Spinozism or Marxism. It is a naive attempt to > combine > > > eclectically the old ideas of empirical psychology with the school > > textbook > > > of formal logic. > > > > (Of course, I understand that this paragraph needs more detailed > > > theoretical analysis. And I will not slow down this analysis in the > very > > > near future. In the meantime, I only note that Vygotsky's assertion > that > > > "generalization is a verbal act of thought" is a maximally aphoristic > > > expression of his idealistic position. For us, as for the materialists, > > the > > > generalization is a practical act and its instrument is the instrument > of > > > labor. And the initial and universal instrument of generalization is > not > > a > > > sign, but an instrument of labor. So the ax is a means of generalizing > > the > > > properties of wood. The ax is, in the same time, a means of analyzing > all > > > the same wood. All this is obvious, looking through the optics of > > > Spinoza-Ilyenkov, that is, simply a Marxist definition of ideality.) > > > Theoretical conclusions made by Vygotsky from the results of Luria's > trip > > > to Uzbekistan logically follow from the above. The Uzbek illiterate > > > peasant, not from school textbooks, but from his own labo > > > > r experience knowing how the earth, aryk, water, hoe and melon are > > > connected, and therefore refusing to produce meaningless formal logical > > > operations with words denoting these things, is declared a primitive > > > thinking by "complexes". Simultaneously, any school crap who knows how > to > > > pronounce definitions from his textbook and familiar with the melon > only > > > when it is bought, washed and cut by his mommy, is declared the bearer > of > > > scientific consciousness. > > > > > > > > Only in this way can we, as psychologists and teachers, come to the > > > value of instruments of labor, not only for the distribution of > material > > > wealth, but also for the distribution of the spiritual wealth, for the > > > distribution of the ability to think, for the distribution of culture. > > Only > > > in this way can we approach the Marxist definition of culture as the > > > totality of the means of its object-oriented activity accumulated by > > > humankind the means of its labor. Only on the path of such based on > idea > > of > > > object-oriented activity understanding of man we will be able to get > out > > of > > > the deadlock of the semiotic, with its symbolic arbitrariness. > > > > Vygotsky's merit is that he was the first who seriously set the task > of > > > creating a Marxist psychology and his merit can be considered that the > > > first real step in this direction was made by his friend and student AN > > > Leontiev.Our task is to continue their mission. > > > > Sasha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ??: Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > > ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" ; > > > Mike Cole ; ivan-dgf ; Martin > > > John Packer ; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? < > > > haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>; Alexander Surmava < > > > alexander.surmava@yahoo.com> > > > > ??????????: ?????, 25 ??????? 2017 15:03 > > > > ????: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity > and > > > communication > > > > > > > > #yiv0081188988 #yiv0081188988 -- P {margin-top:0px;margin-bottom: > > 0px;}#yiv0081188988 > > > Dear Sasha, all, > > > > > > > > apologies for late response, as we've had some health issues at home > > > that fortunately are now dissipating but which have limited > participation > > > anywhere else than home life. > > > > > > > > The real need of democratic pedagogy. That sounds like a concrete > > aspect > > > to begin moving on to what we had hoped at the beginning of this > > > conversation: how is this all gonna be of practical (real) relevance to > > us > > > and not only armchair discussion. So, in what sense is this 'real,' and > > is > > > this a 'need'? (I am not addressing Sasha alone, I am addressing any > and > > > everyone) > > > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > > > From: Alexander Surmava > > > > Sent: 21 October 2017 13:36 > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole; Alfredo Jornet Gil; > > > ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? > > > > Subject: ???: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity > > > and communication Dear Martin,I think that if we're going to discuss > the > > > method of Marx, then it is better to do it discussing his most mature > > work. > > > That is evidently "Das Kapital" and Ilyenkov's monograph "Dialectics of > > the > > > abstract and concrete in theoretical thinking". I am aware that there > is > > a > > > point of view that the position of Marx as a humanist was adequately > > > presented in Gr?ndrisse, whereas the humanistic core of Marx's theory > was > > > allegedly lost in ?Das Kapital?. Accordingly, Marxism is better to > study > > > with the help of Gr?ndrisse, and not with the help of ?Das Kapital?. > > Along > > > with Ilyenkov I do not share this view.I'm afraid that the discussion > of > > > this topic would take us too far from our psychological themes. I think > > > that we should not get stuck in discussing the order of "steps", but > > > immediately put our foot on the first "step" so that after that try to > > rise > > > from it to the seco > > > > nd, and so on ... Taking into account my not young age, it seems to > me > > > that at least for me, it's time to move on from the discussion of the > > > method to the discussion of the subject, from the preparation to > > thinking, > > > to the thinking as such. Especially because the Method can not be > studied > > > before and regardless of the study of the very subject. Perhaps this > > seems > > > paradoxical, but it is a paradox only for those who are not familiar > with > > > the dialectic of Spinoza and Marx. Meanwhile, instead of discussing the > > > question - what is activity, or what is the psyche - we continue to > carry > > > water in a sieve, discussing the singular or plural of the term > activity. > > > Without a doubt, this topic is very useful for translators from Russian > > (or > > > German) language to English, but theoretically it is not very > > informative. > > > And besides, we are convinced that Andy Blunden completely exhausted > this > > > topic a few years ago. Much more interesting would be to discuss the > > > question: what is the justificati > > > > on to declare Vygotsky the founder of activity theory. Where, in any > > > > of his works, Vygotsky introduces the concept of activity, not just > > uses > > > the term ?activity? in the theoretical contexts in which it is used > > > habitually by idealistic psychology. ?The activity (or activities) of > > > consciousness?, ?the activity (or activities) of mental functions?, > > ?speech > > > activity (or activities)?, the concrete activities of the personality?- > > all > > > this has nothing to do with object-oriented activity, with Spinoza and > > > Marx. It seems to me that our main mistake is that we are discussing > the > > > subtleties of understanding the categories of activity by Vygotsky and > > > Leontyev, whereas we need something different. It is necessary to try > to > > > formulate OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of the activity, proceeding from THE > REAL > > > NEED OF THE PRACTICE OF DEMOCRATIC PEDAGOGY.It is impossible to > > understand > > > activity based on Vygotsky's ideas, because there was no such > theoretical > > > category in his theoretical system of views. AN Leontiev introduces a > > > category of object-oriented a > > > > ctivity into psychology, but his theory is of little use for solving > > > practical problems too, for saying ?A?, Leontyev never said ?B?. Having > > > proposed the principle of activity as the universal basis of the > > > psychological theory, its germ cell AN Leontiev did not go further > > failing > > > to concretize this correctly chosen abstract category.Once again, from > > > thehobby group of lovers of Vygotsky, with his "?ultural-?istorical > > > Psychology" and AN Leontyev with his "Psychological Theory of Activity" > > we > > > all have to become community of researchers developing fundamentally > new > > > approaches to education, based on dialectical, revolutionary method of > > > Marx.For the realization of this dream, it is necessary to begin not so > > > much - to learn to listen to each other... :-)Sincerely,Sasha > > > > > > > > ??: Martin John Packer > > > > ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > > ??????????: ???????, 20 ??????? 2017 3:08 > > > > ????: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and > > > communication > > > > > > > > Right, Marx was himself well aware of this difference. My point is > that > > > we have begin to talk about ?the start? of Marx?s analysis, and about > its > > > ?stages,? but these should not be equated with the order of the > treatment > > > in Capital. > > > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden > ablu > > > nden@mira.net>> wrote: > > > > > > > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm > > > > > > > > Of course the method of presentation must differ in form > > > > from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the > > > > material in detail, to analyse its different forms of > > > > development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only > > > > after this work is done, can the actual movement be > > > > adequately described. If this is done successfully, if > > > > the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as > > > > in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a > > > > mere a priori construction. > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Andy Blunden > > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > > On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > > > > Seems to me that if we?re going to talk about the details of Marx?s > > > analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. The two > > have > > > virtually opposite organizations; it?s clear that the order of > > presentation > > > in Capital was not the order of analysis. > > > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Oct 26 16:22:37 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 16:22:37 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTogT2JqZWN0IG9yaWVu?= =?utf-8?q?ted_activity_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: <17c681f0f23221b98b33ce02439deea1@mail.gmail.com> References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <31c3310c-6424-fbea-6f41-06feedb4a732@mira.net> <1906751679.101062.1508053886027@mail.yahoo.com> <57f1cdad-4f9c-40b7-83cc-ca09c8e7349d@mira.net> <1882760320.906421.1508139947649@mail.yahoo.com> <1508155644237.95590@iped.uio.no> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> <630D49CF-00CD-463E-A9B1-1E2924FCE197@uniandes.edu.co> <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> <919379338.1678471.1508585766999@mail.yahoo.com> <1508933013877.70037@iped.uio.no> <1700408066.6258290.1508959180079@mail.yahoo.com> <1948551203.6903063.1509016262347@mail.yahoo.com> <17c681f0f23221b98b33ce02439deea1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Thank you for making those materials available, Eugene. I do not believe that readers of xmca are generally familiar with Bibler's work, but has long been the topic of discussion in cultural-historical circles in Moscow. mike On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Eugene Matusov wrote: > Dear Haydi, Mike, and everybody? > > > > Attached please find the School of Dialogue articles that we published in > 2 special issues of JREEP. > > > > Please let me know if you have questions or comments about any of them. > > > > Take care, > > > > Eugene > > PS Mike and Haydi, can you forward this email to the XMCA group, please? > > ---------------------------- > > Eugene Matusov, PhD > > Editor-in-Chief, Dialogic Pedagogy Journal > > Professor of Education > > School of Education > > 16 W Main st > > University of Delaware > > Newark, DE 19716, USA > > > > Publications: http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu/vita/publications.htm > > DiaPed: http://diaped.soe.udel.edu > > DPJ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dialogic-Pedagogy- > Journal/581685735176063 > > ---------------------------- > > > > > > > > *From:* ?Haydi Zulfei ? [mailto:haydizulfei@rocketmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, October 26, 2017 7:11 AM > *To:* mike cole ; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity < > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>; Eugene Matusov > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity > and communication > > > > And that BASE also soon collapsed. And Mike Cole told rejuvenators to stop > huggling for it was just three Heads of States that gathered together to > announce disintegration in the absence of People. And now on the Website of > the Cultural Historical Psychology to which both of us subscribe (in > particular Sasha and Romanov's dialogue which I have preserved) , they talk > of the state of affairs. And that will be very interesting if one knew if > the collapse was just due to the belated opportunity of blossoming of this > NEW BASE. > > > > It's so strange for me that people by UNITY soon gather unity in base and > not unity in superstructure. Unity in economics and not unity in culture as > defined or unity in their take on both. Alfredo and I agreed on > non-selection of one to the exclusion of the other not as representatives > of anyone person. > > > > I'd read this piece. I read it again. And in capacity of a layman who's > not been schooled to essentially know the difference between theorization > in syllogistic understanding and dialectical understanding , I will try to > provide a very modest answer to a globally known full scholar. > > > > If I wrote not just those measures , I didn't mean 'workering doctrinaires > only' ; I meant the necessity of going to details as , for example , laid > down in the article , certainly , not without considerations. > > > > BTW , I have the article but not Eugene's summary. I could not get it > through researchgate. I'd like to have it , too. > > > > Best > > > > Haydi > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* mike cole > *To:* Haydi Zulfei ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity" ; Eugene Matusov > *Sent:* Thursday, 26 October 2017, 3:45:45 > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity > and communication > > > > Amen to the goals you set for a democratic education, Haydi. > > It seems that the work of Bibler is relevant to the discussion. Here is a > summary that > > Eugene has made available through research gate. > > > > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247887341_A_Few_ > Words_About_Bibler's_Dialogics_The_School_of_the_Dialogue_of_Cultures_ > Conception_and_Curriculum. > > > > > > mike > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:19 PM, wrote: > > Dear Alfredo,all, > > > > First I hope there'll always be relief and rest and comfort at home and at > everybody's so that all of us can feel happy and hopeful! > > > > Second the attached could get us closer to the key as defined as concrete > in democratic pedagogy. So far there must have appeared having gone into > extremes. Experience has shown that sticking to specific ideas as the > definite , the inalienable , the merely genuine legitimate , the > uncompromisable , the MY ever truth , even from the side of the most > learned ones , could in all evidence harm our discussions and lead to > dogma-nourishing. Marx also explicitly advises more and more reading and > delving into matters. > > > > Providing transitional space will smack of rationality wit and wisdom not > ever-drawbacks , surrender , self-deceit or a trait to one's cause. > > > > What you have so far referred to on many occasions , that is , what will > come out of all this process of negotiation , discussion , polemic > quarreling , etc. is , I think , already at hand. > > > > Even at the most advanced countries the macrosocial planning and > programming on the part of the Global Capital has put all educational > practitioners at a defensive and a stop-to-be position and at risk of > regression , drawback and humiliation and losing of all that's been > victorious to this point of time in the hope of capturing and invading even > our remotest strongholds. It's not that we can summarize it in just > non-rote learning or a ban on monopolistic aristocratic advantageous > education or being cautious and on the alert of non-allowance of giving > permit to learners in theory devoid of practice or the positivistic > preoccupation and dealing with factual procedures or statistical numerical > bemusing or qual-free quantification in non-acceptance of plausible > conceptualizaion and theorization. Our in-class tracking should have a > glance at and be quite in harmony with what all combatants of the large > globe bear on their shoulders so that peace , all-embracing equality , > brotherhood , non-violence , tolerance and co-existence in exaltation and > meritocracy are obtained ACTUALLY. Thanks! > > > > Best > > > > Haydi > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Alfredo Jornet Gil > *To:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" ; Mike > Cole ; ivan-dgf ; Martin John > Packer ; ?Haydi ?Zulfei < > haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>; Alexander Surmava < > alexander.surmava@yahoo.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, 25 October 2017, 15:33:42 > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity > and communication > > > > Dear Sasha, all, > > > > apologies for late response, as we've had some health issues at home that > fortunately are now dissipating but which have limited participation > anywhere else than home life. > > > > The real need of democratic pedagogy. That sounds like a concrete aspect > to begin moving on to what we had hoped at the beginning of this > conversation: how is this all gonna be of practical (real) relevance to us > and not only armchair discussion. So, in what sense is this 'real,' and is > this a 'need'? (I am not addressing Sasha alone, I am addressing any and > everyone) > > > > Alfredo > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Alexander Surmava > *Sent:* 21 October 2017 13:36 > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole; Alfredo Jornet Gil; > ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei > *Subject:* ???: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity > and communication > > > > Dear Martin, > > I think that if we're going to discuss the method of Marx, then it is > better to do it discussing his most mature work. That is evidently "Das > Kapital" and Ilyenkov's monograph "Dialectics of the abstract and concrete > in theoretical thinking". I am aware that there is a point of view that the > position of Marx as a humanist was adequately presented in Gr?ndrisse, > whereas the humanistic core of Marx's theory was allegedly lost in ?Das > Kapital?. Accordingly, Marxism is better to study with the help of > Gr?ndrisse, and not with the help of ?Das Kapital?. Along with Ilyenkov I > do not share this view. > > I'm afraid that the discussion of this topic would take us too far from > our psychological themes. I think that we should not get stuck in > discussing the order of "steps", but immediately put our foot on the first > "step" so that after that try to rise from it to the second, and so on ... > > > > Taking into account my not young age, it seems to me that at least for me, > it's time to move on from the discussion of the method to the discussion of > the subject, from the preparation to thinking, to the thinking as such. > Especially because the Method can not be studied before and regardless of > the study of the very subject. Perhaps this seems paradoxical, but it is a > paradox only for those who are not familiar with the dialectic of Spinoza > and Marx. > > > > Meanwhile, instead of discussing the question - what is activity, or what > is the psyche - we continue to carry water in a sieve, discussing the > singular or plural of the term activity. Without a doubt, this topic is > very useful for translators from Russian (or German) language to English, > but theoretically it is not very informative. And besides, we are convinced > that Andy Blunden completely exhausted this topic a few years ago. > > > > Much more interesting would be to discuss the question: what is the > justification to declare Vygotsky the founder of activity theory. Where, in > any of his works, Vygotsky introduces the concept of activity, not just > uses the term ?activity? in the theoretical contexts in which it is used > habitually by idealistic psychology. ?The activity (or activities) of > consciousness?, ?the activity (or activities) of mental functions?, ?speech > activity (or activities)?, the concrete activities of the personality?- all > this has nothing to do with object-oriented activity, with Spinoza and Marx. > > > > It seems to me that our main mistake is that we are discussing the > subtleties of understanding the categories of activity by Vygotsky and > Leontyev, whereas we need something different. It is necessary to try to > formulate OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of the activity, proceeding from THE REAL > NEED OF THE PRACTICE OF DEMOCRATIC PEDAGOGY. > > It is impossible to understand activity based on Vygotsky's ideas, because > there was no such theoretical category in his theoretical system of views. > AN Leontiev introduces a category of object-oriented activity into > psychology, but his theory is of little use for solving practical problems > too, for saying ?A?, Leontyev never said ?B?. Having proposed the principle > of activity as the universal basis of the psychological theory, its germ > cell AN Leontiev did not go further failing to concretize this correctly > chosen abstract category. > > Once again, from the hobby group > of > lovers of Vygotsky, with his "?ultural-?istorical Psychology" and AN > Leontyev with his "Psychological Theory of Activity" we all have to become > community of researchers developing fundamentally new approaches to > education, based on dialectical, revolutionary method of Marx. > > For the realization of this dream, it is necessary to begin not so much - > to learn to listen to each other... :-) > > Sincerely, > > Sasha > > > ------------------------------ > > *??:* Martin John Packer > *????:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *??????????:* ???????, 20 ??????? 2017 3:08 > *????:* [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and > communication > > > > Right, Marx was himself well aware of this difference. My point is that we > have begin to talk about ?the start? of Marx?s analysis, and about its > ?stages,? but these should not be equated with the order of the treatment > in Capital. > > Martin > > > > On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden nden@mira.net >> wrote: > > https://www.marxists.org/ archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3. htm > > > Of course the method of presentation must differ in form > from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the > material in detail, to analyse its different forms of > development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only > after this work is done, can the actual movement be > adequately described. If this is done successfully, if > the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as > in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a > mere a priori construction. > > Andy > > ------------------------------ ------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://www.ethicalpolitics. org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > Seems to me that if we?re going to talk about the details of Marx?s > analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. The two have > virtually opposite organizations; it?s clear that the order of presentation > in Capital was not the order of analysis. > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Oct 26 16:31:54 2017 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 16:31:54 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog?= =?utf-8?q?Object_oriented_activity_and_communication?= In-Reply-To: References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> <630D49CF-00CD-463E-A9B1-1E2924FCE197@uniandes.edu.co> <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> <6B0A96B7-3ACE-43E8-8CFC-3AD05568269A@uniandes.edu.co> <919379338.1678471.1508585766999@mail.yahoo.com> <1508933013877.70037@iped.uio.no> <1311730113.6439834.1508973202950@mail.yahoo.com> <6e7d87e2-b3e7-5b41-1175-04c13dd1d78c@mira.net> Message-ID: Lovely essay, David. Can't we generalize this: "*Yes, privileged access is not a metaphyiscal, philosophical problem; it's a* *real, concrete problem for stage actors.?"* Can't we conclude that privileged access is a real, concrete, problem for human ?? *?* *?*beings in their everyday lives? mike*?* On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:04 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Yes, privileged access is not a metaphyiscal, philosophical problem; it's a > real, concrete problem for stage actors. It's why Vygotsky takes > Stanislavsky's scripts as a kind of model for the human mind in Chapter > Seven of Thinking and Speech. How the actor gives the audience access to > the plane of thinkings and sayings was never problematic. In Shakespeare's > time, there were long "set speeches" to the audience, but the "true > feelings" of the character for the character she or he was about to murder > or marry had to be conveyed soto voce, in asides. Shakespeare changed all > that, and he did it with stagecraft, by dividing the stage into planes > representing the mind of the speaker--the foreplane, where Hamlet advances > to the front of the stage and speaks feelings to the audience, the midplane > for quoting thoughts and words, and the rearplane for actions. > > This model is essentially the model of the mind we see in Chapter Seven. > Alas, only David Tennant, of contemporary Shakespeareans, really > understands this: only his Hamlet speaks "To be or not to be" with UPWARD > intonation, as if it were a real question, and manipulates the stresses > correctly, so that "whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and > arrows of outrageous fortune" in the end turns out to be "not to be" while > "to take up arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them" turns > out to be "to be". > Benedict Cumberbatch, by contrast, turns this torrent of emotion back into > a fifteenth century set speech and delivers it like a soldier presenting a > battle briefing to superior officers with a PPT. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twwntlAlnV0 > > The Chinese actor is more Brechtian than Stanslavskian (or rather, Brecht > was more Chinese than European); the Chinese actor always has the character > at arms length, even the character which the actor is conveying (the > dialectical leap is between actor and character, not between doing, > feeling, thinking and saying). Notice the first part of the video when the > various actors are explaining their feelings to audience. They don't have a > particular place where they stand to do this, or even a particular > intonation for it: it is more often conveyed by their gestures and their > eye contact, and by their use of the third person in Chinese, which shows > they are addressing the audience rather than their interlocutor.The Chinese > actor always stresses the linked quality of feeling and thinking, thinking > and doing, while the Western actor tries to convey the dialectical leap. > > David Kellogg > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 9:59 PM, James Ma wrote: > > > David, sounds like you're talking about "privilege access"? > > > > The video brought back a lot of memories of my childhood! > > > > James > > > > > > > > On 26 October 2017 at 11:55, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > > All Vygotsky says is that thinking is represented in the brain > > differently > > > than immediate sensation. Vygotsky didn't have access to MRI scans or > > > computerized tomography. In fact these can and do distinguish between > > verbs > > > of sensation and verbs of verbal report. But what Vygotsky did have > > access > > > to is the grammar of reported speech. > > > > > > In all languages that I know, it is possible to quote the words of > > another > > > person. I can say, for example: > > > > > > Sasha says "Obviously, this has nothing to do with Marxism". > > > > > > I can also quote the thoughts of another person. > > > > > > Sasha thinks, "Obviously, this has nothing to with Marxism." > > > > > > I can do this even when there are no actual words, just as I can read > > > Sasha's thoughts without him speaking them. > > > > > > However, in no languages that Iknow is it possible to quote the actions > > or > > > the immediate sensations of another person. I cannot say, for example: > > > > > > "Sasha stood "Up"" > > > > > > "Sasha felt 'Cold'". > > > > > > When I try to say this, what I end up saying is that Sasha thought a > word > > > meaning, not that he felt an immediate sensation. > > > > > > In Chinese we say, "The speaker has gone, and the tea is cold." This > is > > > originally a line from the revolutionary opera "Shajiabang", about a > > woman > > > who runs a teahouse used by communists. In this scene, the children are > > > acting out a visit by a Chinese quisling and a Japanese officer; they > > > accuse the woman of communist sympathies, and she says that all people > > who > > > come to her teahouse have sympathies, but as soon as they go, their tea > > is > > > cold, and she throws it out (6:13). > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUYvyRMvCNU > > > > > > There is no way, as Wittgenstein says, to feel the toothache of another > > > person; all you can do is to describe it in thoughts and words. > > > Paradoxically, when we want to share thoughts, we can do it > > "immediately", > > > because thoughts and words have already made the dialectical leap--the > > leap > > > from idiolect into a sharable dialect. > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other verbs). First of all, notice that he is saying that > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: > > > > > > > That is a tendency within our heritage, David. Some people > > > > take the category of "labour" rather than "activity" to be > > > > the key category. > > > > > > > > As I understand it, "labour," or "production," is activity > > > > in the case where production and consumption and socially > > > > mediated, but I think that activity whose object is an > > > > object of consumption should be included within the basic > > > > category of Activity Theory, even if there are important > > > > psychological differences. Some are also concerned to > > > > separate symbolic activity, such as speech or supervision of > > > > labour, from the fundamental category, giving tool-use > > > > priority over sign use, and use of the term "labour" > > > > suggests that. Vygotsky expressed himself firmly against > > > > this move. > > > > > > > > So use of "activity" rather than "labour" or vice versa does > > > > reflect certain tensions within the tradition. > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Tool%20and% > > > > 20Sign%20in%20Vygotskys%20Development.pdf > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Andy Blunden > > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > > On 26/10/2017 6:14 PM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. wrote: > > > > > Xmca seems to have a workerist tendency operating - for myself I > have > > > > always found that the work of generalising (in Vygotsky's sense) is a > > > > labour of object-oriented activity. But that's just me > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ > > > > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Alexander Surmava > > > > > Sent: 26 October 2017 00:13 > > > > > To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike > Cole; > > > > ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] ???: Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity > > > > and communication > > > > > > > > > > Dear Alfredo, > > > > > > > > > > thank you for your very accurate reaction. You definitely noticed > the > > > > main thing. Today, in the era of globalization and developed > > > technologies, > > > > the class antagonism between exploited people and their exploiters, > > > between > > > > capital and wage labor, assumes the appearance of the opposite > between > > > > different ethnic groups and cultures. Capital itself has always been > a > > > > global phenomenon, and a class of capitalists - a cosmopolitan class. > > > > Putting military overcoats on workers and sending them to fight and > to > > > kill > > > > each other under nationalist slogans, they continued to cooperate > with > > > > their exploitation colleagues, somehow continuing to receive > dividends > > > from > > > > their enterprises located on the territory of their "enemy." Today > > > Putin's > > > > friends and henchmen who curse the "insidious West" take their > capitals > > > to > > > > this West, buy property there, send their children to study there and > > go > > > > there themselves to rest and be treated. And today Mr. Poroshenko - > the > > > > president of the country that was subje > > > > > cted to the aggression of the neighboring state, owns chocolate > > > > factories located on the territory of this country. > > > > > In Russia, and in Western Europe, and in the United States, the > > policy > > > > of the ruling classes is based today on inciting against each other > the > > > > working people of different ethnic groups and confessions, on their > > > > juxtaposition of each other as superior and second-class creatures. > > > > > And as an ideological justification of the enmity incited by the > > ruling > > > > class towards working people of a different skin color, working > people > > > > speaking a different language and praying to other gods, public > > > > consciousness is infected with totally false ideas constructed > > allegedly > > > on > > > > a scientific basis. All this is not new. One hundred years ago, the > > > > dominant ideology rested on undisguised racism. Today, the same task > is > > > > being solved by more sophisticated means, appealing to so-called > > > "cultural" > > > > differences. Although the old ideology appealing to biological > > > differences > > > > has not disappeared. Only today it is covered by a new, > > molecular-genetic > > > > argumentation, an appeal not only to livestock farming, but also to > the > > > > "psychology of culture". > > > > > It is possible to unmask this bourgeois lie, not only in words but > > also > > > > in deeds, if we can understand that human development is not the > > ability > > > of > > > > individuals to experience (perejivat?) the meaning of words, but to > be > > > > genuine subjects of object-oriented activity, the subjects of labor. > > > > > If we stay on Vygotsky's theoretical positions, which believed that > > the > > > > human psyche begins with acts of sensation that thinking is just a > > verbal > > > > "generalization" of the material that our senses deliver to us, then > > any > > > > wretched ideologist, with a well-suspended language, will seem to us > > the > > > > owner of perfect wisdom, whereas a worker or a peasant doing his own > > > work, > > > > but not possessing the skill of ideological verbosity, will look > > > something > > > > inferior. > > > > > If someone is shocked by such an evaluation of Vygotsky's theory, > > open > > > > his "Thinking and speach" and reread this key paragraph. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "It has been said that the dialectical leap is not only a > transition > > > > from matter that is incapable of sensation to matter that is capable > of > > > > sensation, but a transition from sensation to thought. This implies > > that > > > > reality is reflected in consciousness in a qualitatively different > way > > in > > > > thinking than it is in immediate sensation. This qualitative > difference > > > is > > > > primarily a function of a generalized reflection of reality. > Therefore, > > > > generalization in word meaning is an act of thinking in the true > sense > > of > > > > the word. At the same time, however, meaning is an inseparable part > of > > > the > > > > word; it belongs not only to the domain of thought but to the domain > of > > > > speech. A word without meaning is not a word, but an empty sound. A > > word > > > > without meaning no longer belongs to the domain of speech. One cannot > > say > > > > of word meaning what we said earlier of the elements of the word > taken > > > > separately. Is word meaning speech or is it thought? It is both at > one > > > and > > > > the same time; it is a unit of verbal thi > > > > > nking. It is obvious, then, that our method must be that of > semantic > > > > analysis. Our method must rely on the analysts of the meaningful > aspect > > > of > > > > speech; it must be a method for studying verbal meaning. > > > > > > > > > > We can reasonably anticipate that this method will produce answers > to > > > > our questions concerning the relationship between thinking and speech > > > > because this relationship is already contained in the unit of > analysis. > > > In > > > > studying the function, structure, and development of this unit, we > will > > > > come to understand a great deal that is of direct relevance to the > > > problem > > > > of the relationship of thinking to speech and to the nature of verbal > > > > thinking." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously, such an "understanding" of thinking has not the > slightest > > > > relation to either Spinozism or Marxism. It is a naive attempt to > > combine > > > > eclectically the old ideas of empirical psychology with the school > > > textbook > > > > of formal logic. > > > > > (Of course, I understand that this paragraph needs more detailed > > > > theoretical analysis. And I will not slow down this analysis in the > > very > > > > near future. In the meantime, I only note that Vygotsky's assertion > > that > > > > "generalization is a verbal act of thought" is a maximally aphoristic > > > > expression of his idealistic position. For us, as for the > materialists, > > > the > > > > generalization is a practical act and its instrument is the > instrument > > of > > > > labor. And the initial and universal instrument of generalization is > > not > > > a > > > > sign, but an instrument of labor. So the ax is a means of > generalizing > > > the > > > > properties of wood. The ax is, in the same time, a means of analyzing > > all > > > > the same wood. All this is obvious, looking through the optics of > > > > Spinoza-Ilyenkov, that is, simply a Marxist definition of ideality.) > > > > Theoretical conclusions made by Vygotsky from the results of Luria's > > trip > > > > to Uzbekistan logically follow from the above. The Uzbek illiterate > > > > peasant, not from school textbooks, but from his own labo > > > > > r experience knowing how the earth, aryk, water, hoe and melon are > > > > connected, and therefore refusing to produce meaningless formal > logical > > > > operations with words denoting these things, is declared a primitive > > > > thinking by "complexes". Simultaneously, any school crap who knows > how > > to > > > > pronounce definitions from his textbook and familiar with the melon > > only > > > > when it is bought, washed and cut by his mommy, is declared the > bearer > > of > > > > scientific consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > Only in this way can we, as psychologists and teachers, come to the > > > > value of instruments of labor, not only for the distribution of > > material > > > > wealth, but also for the distribution of the spiritual wealth, for > the > > > > distribution of the ability to think, for the distribution of > culture. > > > Only > > > > in this way can we approach the Marxist definition of culture as the > > > > totality of the means of its object-oriented activity accumulated by > > > > humankind the means of its labor. Only on the path of such based on > > idea > > > of > > > > object-oriented activity understanding of man we will be able to get > > out > > > of > > > > the deadlock of the semiotic, with its symbolic arbitrariness. > > > > > Vygotsky's merit is that he was the first who seriously set the > task > > of > > > > creating a Marxist psychology and his merit can be considered that > the > > > > first real step in this direction was made by his friend and student > AN > > > > Leontiev.Our task is to continue their mission. > > > > > Sasha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ??: Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > > > ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >; > > > > Mike Cole ; ivan-dgf ; > Martin > > > > John Packer ; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? < > > > > haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>; Alexander Surmava < > > > > alexander.surmava@yahoo.com> > > > > > ??????????: ?????, 25 ??????? 2017 15:03 > > > > > ????: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity > > and > > > > communication > > > > > > > > > > #yiv0081188988 #yiv0081188988 -- P {margin-top:0px;margin-bottom: > > > 0px;}#yiv0081188988 > > > > Dear Sasha, all, > > > > > > > > > > apologies for late response, as we've had some health issues at > home > > > > that fortunately are now dissipating but which have limited > > participation > > > > anywhere else than home life. > > > > > > > > > > The real need of democratic pedagogy. That sounds like a concrete > > > aspect > > > > to begin moving on to what we had hoped at the beginning of this > > > > conversation: how is this all gonna be of practical (real) relevance > to > > > us > > > > and not only armchair discussion. So, in what sense is this 'real,' > and > > > is > > > > this a 'need'? (I am not addressing Sasha alone, I am addressing any > > and > > > > everyone) > > > > > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > > > > > From: Alexander Surmava > > > > > Sent: 21 October 2017 13:36 > > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole; Alfredo Jornet > Gil; > > > > ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? > > > > > Subject: ???: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity > > > > and communication Dear Martin,I think that if we're going to discuss > > the > > > > method of Marx, then it is better to do it discussing his most mature > > > work. > > > > That is evidently "Das Kapital" and Ilyenkov's monograph "Dialectics > of > > > the > > > > abstract and concrete in theoretical thinking". I am aware that there > > is > > > a > > > > point of view that the position of Marx as a humanist was adequately > > > > presented in Gr?ndrisse, whereas the humanistic core of Marx's theory > > was > > > > allegedly lost in ?Das Kapital?. Accordingly, Marxism is better to > > study > > > > with the help of Gr?ndrisse, and not with the help of ?Das Kapital?. > > > Along > > > > with Ilyenkov I do not share this view.I'm afraid that the discussion > > of > > > > this topic would take us too far from our psychological themes. I > think > > > > that we should not get stuck in discussing the order of "steps", but > > > > immediately put our foot on the first "step" so that after that try > to > > > rise > > > > from it to the seco > > > > > nd, and so on ... Taking into account my not young age, it seems > to > > me > > > > that at least for me, it's time to move on from the discussion of the > > > > method to the discussion of the subject, from the preparation to > > > thinking, > > > > to the thinking as such. Especially because the Method can not be > > studied > > > > before and regardless of the study of the very subject. Perhaps this > > > seems > > > > paradoxical, but it is a paradox only for those who are not familiar > > with > > > > the dialectic of Spinoza and Marx. Meanwhile, instead of discussing > the > > > > question - what is activity, or what is the psyche - we continue to > > carry > > > > water in a sieve, discussing the singular or plural of the term > > activity. > > > > Without a doubt, this topic is very useful for translators from > Russian > > > (or > > > > German) language to English, but theoretically it is not very > > > informative. > > > > And besides, we are convinced that Andy Blunden completely exhausted > > this > > > > topic a few years ago. Much more interesting would be to discuss the > > > > question: what is the justificati > > > > > on to declare Vygotsky the founder of activity theory. Where, in > any > > > > > of his works, Vygotsky introduces the concept of activity, not just > > > uses > > > > the term ?activity? in the theoretical contexts in which it is used > > > > habitually by idealistic psychology. ?The activity (or activities) of > > > > consciousness?, ?the activity (or activities) of mental functions?, > > > ?speech > > > > activity (or activities)?, the concrete activities of the > personality?- > > > all > > > > this has nothing to do with object-oriented activity, with Spinoza > and > > > > Marx. It seems to me that our main mistake is that we are discussing > > the > > > > subtleties of understanding the categories of activity by Vygotsky > and > > > > Leontyev, whereas we need something different. It is necessary to try > > to > > > > formulate OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of the activity, proceeding from THE > > REAL > > > > NEED OF THE PRACTICE OF DEMOCRATIC PEDAGOGY.It is impossible to > > > understand > > > > activity based on Vygotsky's ideas, because there was no such > > theoretical > > > > category in his theoretical system of views. AN Leontiev introduces a > > > > category of object-oriented a > > > > > ctivity into psychology, but his theory is of little use for > solving > > > > practical problems too, for saying ?A?, Leontyev never said ?B?. > Having > > > > proposed the principle of activity as the universal basis of the > > > > psychological theory, its germ cell AN Leontiev did not go further > > > failing > > > > to concretize this correctly chosen abstract category.Once again, > from > > > > thehobby group of lovers of Vygotsky, with his "?ultural-?istorical > > > > Psychology" and AN Leontyev with his "Psychological Theory of > Activity" > > > we > > > > all have to become community of researchers developing fundamentally > > new > > > > approaches to education, based on dialectical, revolutionary method > of > > > > Marx.For the realization of this dream, it is necessary to begin not > so > > > > much - to learn to listen to each other... :-)Sincerely,Sasha > > > > > > > > > > ??: Martin John Packer > > > > > ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > > > ??????????: ???????, 20 ??????? 2017 3:08 > > > > > ????: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and > > > > communication > > > > > > > > > > Right, Marx was himself well aware of this difference. My point is > > that > > > > we have begin to talk about ?the start? of Marx?s analysis, and about > > its > > > > ?stages,? but these should not be equated with the order of the > > treatment > > > > in Capital. > > > > > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden > > ablu > > > > nden@mira.net>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm > > > > > > > > > > Of course the method of presentation must differ in form > > > > > from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the > > > > > material in detail, to analyse its different forms of > > > > > development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only > > > > > after this work is done, can the actual movement be > > > > > adequately described. If this is done successfully, if > > > > > the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as > > > > > in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a > > > > > mere a priori construction. > > > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > Andy Blunden > > > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > > > On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > > > > > Seems to me that if we?re going to talk about the details of Marx?s > > > > analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. The > two > > > have > > > > virtually opposite organizations; it?s clear that the order of > > > presentation > > > > in Capital was not the order of analysis. > > > > > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Fri Oct 27 16:26:12 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 08:26:12 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Vowels Are From Venus Message-ID: I've always been restless with the idea that language is a self-organizing system, or that it has a "fractal" structure in the sense of the "self-similarity" we find in a fern leaf--the same structure at every level. I suppose my impatience is ideological: I believe language organization is semantically driven (and semantic structure is a realization/transformation of some of the structures found in contexts). So I don't think that vowels and consonants organize themselves into syllables without human intentions, nor do I think that syllables will form words unless somebody makes them do it. As for grammar, it seems to me that to expect that even the very limited grammar found in this paragraph you are reading should somehow be "thrown up" by the words I am using and their elective affinities is a little like expecting medieval cathedrals to be thrown up by the mutual attraction of the stones that compose them. Yes, I know. Consonants are what happen in the absence of vowels (at the ends of vowel phrases). Vowels are what happen at the ends of consonants. As soon as you have breath, vocal cord vibration, and a beginning and an end to it, you have the primitive structure (Optional Consonant) Mandatory Vowel (Optioinal Consonant), and from this we can derive all the possible syllable structures of any language. You can do the same trick at any level of language: If you have a morpheme like "work" or "play" you can add a bound morpheme to either end ("re~" and/or "~ed"),and if you have a clause like "Work!" you can add a bound clause to either end ("If you are so willing~" and/or "so as to enrich yourselves!") and the existence of xmca itself shows how this principle works on units above the clause--Mike's last post is not really intelligible without my preceding one, and mine is not really intelligible without James's, etc. But I'm not talking about the various forms of language, potential and real; these are of course the affordances of the stuff of which language is made, just as the limits of what you can do on a canvas has something to do with the consistency of the paint. I'm talking about what people actually do and not just what they may or might do. So for example when we look at "To be or not to be" or at the speeches we find in "Shajiabang" or even, as Mike suggests, at the language of everyday life, we find that vowels tend to carry the feeling of what we say (that's why they are elongated in tonics and why they are directed in tonality). Consonants, on the other hand, work better for the nuances of thinking. That's why we sing the vowels, but spell with consonants; why Ophelia says "Oh what a noble mind is here o'erthrone!" but Hamlet says "Nymph, in thy orisons be all my sins remembered!". And so once again we find that feeling and thinking are both linked and distinct, to say the which is surely to say no more and no less than to say that they are joined/separated by a dialectical leap. David Kellogg From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Fri Oct 27 16:43:23 2017 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 19:43:23 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Haitian/vilokan idealism Message-ID: <30uglpupa87gc7mn57mprkdr.1509147469359@email.android.com> Attempting to constitute the epistemological orientation of the haitian people (forthcoming book, "haitian epistemology: haitian/vilokan idealism") while simultaneously developing a methodology from that orientation which can be used to develop haitian social science. https://youtu.be/5gTegMxtHGs Sent on the new Sprint Network From jamesma320@gmail.com Sat Oct 28 14:21:12 2017 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 22:21:12 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I often find it interesting to read David?s words, good and catalytic to me. I?ve been working on the Peirce-Vygotsky project and Peirce?s idea of final logical interpretant which I take to be a qualitative transformation, perhaps equivalent to ?a dialectical leap?. To me, this transformation is not only attributable to an accrued quantitative change but also bears itself the heritage of all the earlier qualitative changes. So, the resultant final logical interpretant encapsulates both qualitative and quantitative changes. By the way, on the face of it, ?a dialectical leap? is a more congenial and customary concept to most Chinese people (from Mainland) due to historical reasons. In a stage drama, I agree with David that an actor?s privileged access is a real problem for him. This privileged access will have to be calibrated or attuned to a dialectical leap in such a way that the actor needs to make a choice from the plenitude of signs that are constantly on the move both consciously and subliminally. However, in the case of Peking opera, a dialectical leap is far more complex since there is more to it. The actor is involved in an organic combination of vocal performance, acrobatics and dance etc. Perhaps, dialectical leap is not quite a right word to reflect what is perceived as the essence of Peking opera: ???? consummate, and ???? superb. James *James Ma* *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa * On 28 October 2017 at 00:26, David Kellogg wrote: > I've always been restless with the idea that language is a self-organizing > system, or that it has a "fractal" structure in the sense of > the "self-similarity" we find in a fern leaf--the same structure at every > level. I suppose my impatience is ideological: I believe language > organization is semantically driven (and semantic structure is a > realization/transformation of some of the structures found in contexts). So > I don't think that vowels and consonants organize themselves into syllables > without human intentions, nor do I think that syllables will form words > unless somebody makes them do it. As for grammar, it seems to me that to > expect that even the very limited grammar found in this paragraph you are > reading should somehow be "thrown up" by the words I am using and their > elective affinities is a little like expecting medieval cathedrals to be > thrown up by the mutual attraction of the stones that compose them. > > Yes, I know. Consonants are what happen in the absence of vowels (at the > ends of vowel phrases). Vowels are what happen at the ends of consonants. > As soon as you have breath, vocal cord vibration, and a beginning and an > end to it, you have the primitive structure (Optional Consonant) Mandatory > Vowel (Optioinal Consonant), and from this we can derive all the possible > syllable structures of any language. You can do the same trick at any level > of language: If you have a morpheme like "work" or "play" you can add a > bound morpheme to either end ("re~" and/or "~ed"),and if you have a clause > like "Work!" you can add a bound clause to either end ("If you are so > willing~" and/or "so as to enrich yourselves!") and the existence of xmca > itself shows how this principle works on units above the clause--Mike's > last post is not really intelligible without my preceding one, and mine is > not really intelligible without James's, etc. > > But I'm not talking about the various forms of language, potential and > real; these are of course the affordances of the stuff of which language is > made, just as the limits of what you can do on a canvas has something to do > with the consistency of the paint. I'm talking about what people actually > do and not just what they may or might do. So for example when we look at > "To be or not to be" or at the speeches we find in "Shajiabang" or even, as > Mike suggests, at the language of everyday life, we find that vowels tend > to carry the feeling of what we say (that's why they are elongated > in tonics and why they are directed in tonality). Consonants, on the other > hand, work better for the nuances of thinking. That's why we sing the > vowels, but spell with consonants; why Ophelia says "Oh what a noble mind > is here o'erthrone!" but Hamlet says "Nymph, in thy orisons be all my sins > remembered!". And so once again we find that feeling and thinking are both > linked and distinct, to say the which is surely to say no more and no less > than to say that they are joined/separated by a dialectical leap. > > David Kellogg > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sat Oct 28 16:27:31 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 08:27:31 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You notice that James gives us two antithetical couplets, each of four syllables (Chinese, like child protolanguage, doesn't differentiate vowels and consonants). ???? ???? L? hu? ch?n q?ng (the fire of the furnace burns a pure green hue) Ch? sh?n r? hu? (The god emerges and merges, comes out and goes in) I haven't actually rendered the feeling that a Chinese person feels on hearing these expressions, any more than the words "consummate" or "superb" communicate the thought. For one thing, my translation is too labored and literal; a a Chinese person doesn't analyze so literally and the imagery is largley "automatized" rather than visualized. For another, the four character line has a history that goes all the way back to the Book of Songs (11th C BCE) and all the way up to the antithetical couplets peasants put on their doorways as Spring Festival in the the countryside (But James is right: the idea of antithetical couplets is a kind of natural dialectic built into the Chinese language. Somedays, like today, I find it that it influences the way I write in English.) David Kellogg On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 6:21 AM, James Ma wrote: > I often find it interesting to read David?s words, good and catalytic to > me. > > I?ve been working on the Peirce-Vygotsky project and Peirce?s idea of final > logical interpretant which I take to be a qualitative transformation, > perhaps equivalent to ?a dialectical leap?. To me, this transformation is > not only attributable to an accrued quantitative change but also bears > itself the heritage of all the earlier qualitative changes. So, the > resultant final logical interpretant encapsulates both qualitative and > quantitative changes. > > By the way, on the face of it, ?a dialectical leap? is a more congenial and > customary concept to most Chinese people (from Mainland) due to historical > reasons. > > In a stage drama, I agree with David that an actor?s privileged access is a > real problem for him. This privileged access will have to be calibrated or > attuned to a dialectical leap in such a way that the actor needs to make a > choice from the plenitude of signs that are constantly on the move both > consciously and subliminally. However, in the case of Peking opera, a > dialectical leap is far more complex since there is more to it. The actor > is involved in an organic combination of vocal performance, acrobatics and > dance etc. Perhaps, dialectical leap is not quite a right word to reflect > what is perceived as the essence of Peking opera: ???? consummate, and ???? > superb. > > James > > > *James Ma* *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > * > > > On 28 October 2017 at 00:26, David Kellogg wrote: > > > I've always been restless with the idea that language is a > self-organizing > > system, or that it has a "fractal" structure in the sense of > > the "self-similarity" we find in a fern leaf--the same structure at every > > level. I suppose my impatience is ideological: I believe language > > organization is semantically driven (and semantic structure is a > > realization/transformation of some of the structures found in contexts). > So > > I don't think that vowels and consonants organize themselves into > syllables > > without human intentions, nor do I think that syllables will form words > > unless somebody makes them do it. As for grammar, it seems to me that to > > expect that even the very limited grammar found in this paragraph you are > > reading should somehow be "thrown up" by the words I am using and their > > elective affinities is a little like expecting medieval cathedrals to be > > thrown up by the mutual attraction of the stones that compose them. > > > > Yes, I know. Consonants are what happen in the absence of vowels (at the > > ends of vowel phrases). Vowels are what happen at the ends of consonants. > > As soon as you have breath, vocal cord vibration, and a beginning and an > > end to it, you have the primitive structure (Optional Consonant) > Mandatory > > Vowel (Optioinal Consonant), and from this we can derive all the possible > > syllable structures of any language. You can do the same trick at any > level > > of language: If you have a morpheme like "work" or "play" you can add a > > bound morpheme to either end ("re~" and/or "~ed"),and if you have a > clause > > like "Work!" you can add a bound clause to either end ("If you are so > > willing~" and/or "so as to enrich yourselves!") and the existence of xmca > > itself shows how this principle works on units above the clause--Mike's > > last post is not really intelligible without my preceding one, and mine > is > > not really intelligible without James's, etc. > > > > But I'm not talking about the various forms of language, potential and > > real; these are of course the affordances of the stuff of which language > is > > made, just as the limits of what you can do on a canvas has something to > do > > with the consistency of the paint. I'm talking about what people actually > > do and not just what they may or might do. So for example when we look at > > "To be or not to be" or at the speeches we find in "Shajiabang" or even, > as > > Mike suggests, at the language of everyday life, we find that vowels tend > > to carry the feeling of what we say (that's why they are elongated > > in tonics and why they are directed in tonality). Consonants, on the > other > > hand, work better for the nuances of thinking. That's why we sing the > > vowels, but spell with consonants; why Ophelia says "Oh what a noble mind > > is here o'erthrone!" but Hamlet says "Nymph, in thy orisons be all my > sins > > remembered!". And so once again we find that feeling and thinking are > both > > linked and distinct, to say the which is surely to say no more and no > less > > than to say that they are joined/separated by a dialectical leap. > > > > David Kellogg > > > From jamesma320@gmail.com Sun Oct 29 00:28:00 2017 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 07:28:00 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David, why do you say Chinese language doesn't differentiate vowels and consonants? In what way? James On 29 October 2017 at 00:27, David Kellogg wrote: You notice that James gives us two antithetical couplets, each of four > syllables (Chinese, like child protolanguage, doesn't differentiate vowels > and consonants). > > ???? > ???? > > L? hu? ch?n q?ng (the fire of the furnace burns a pure green hue) > Ch? sh?n r? hu? (The god emerges and merges, comes out and goes in) > > I haven't actually rendered the feeling that a Chinese person feels on > hearing these expressions, > any more than the words "consummate" or "superb" communicate the thought. > > For one thing, my translation is too labored and literal; a a Chinese > person doesn't analyze so literally and the imagery is largley > "automatized" rather than visualized. > For another, the four character line has a history that goes all the way > back to the Book of Songs (11th C BCE) and all the way up to the > antithetical couplets peasants put on their doorways as Spring Festival in > the the countryside > > (But James is right: the idea of antithetical couplets is a kind of natural > dialectic built into the Chinese language. > Somedays, like today, I find it that it influences the way I write in > English.) > > David Kellogg > > > > On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 6:21 AM, James Ma wrote: > > > I often find it interesting to read David?s words, good and catalytic to > > me. > > > > I?ve been working on the Peirce-Vygotsky project and Peirce?s idea of > final > > logical interpretant which I take to be a qualitative transformation, > > perhaps equivalent to ?a dialectical leap?. To me, this transformation is > > not only attributable to an accrued quantitative change but also bears > > itself the heritage of all the earlier qualitative changes. So, the > > resultant final logical interpretant encapsulates both qualitative and > > quantitative changes. > > > > By the way, on the face of it, ?a dialectical leap? is a more congenial > and > > customary concept to most Chinese people (from Mainland) due to > historical > > reasons. > > > > In a stage drama, I agree with David that an actor?s privileged access > is a > > real problem for him. This privileged access will have to be calibrated > or > > attuned to a dialectical leap in such a way that the actor needs to make > a > > choice from the plenitude of signs that are constantly on the move both > > consciously and subliminally. However, in the case of Peking opera, a > > dialectical leap is far more complex since there is more to it. The actor > > is involved in an organic combination of vocal performance, acrobatics > and > > dance etc. Perhaps, dialectical leap is not quite a right word to reflect > > what is perceived as the essence of Peking opera: ???? consummate, and > ???? > > superb. > > > > James > > > > > > *James Ma* *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > > * > > > > > > On 28 October 2017 at 00:26, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > > I've always been restless with the idea that language is a > > self-organizing > > > system, or that it has a "fractal" structure in the sense of > > > the "self-similarity" we find in a fern leaf--the same structure at > every > > > level. I suppose my impatience is ideological: I believe language > > > organization is semantically driven (and semantic structure is a > > > realization/transformation of some of the structures found in > contexts). > > So > > > I don't think that vowels and consonants organize themselves into > > syllables > > > without human intentions, nor do I think that syllables will form words > > > unless somebody makes them do it. As for grammar, it seems to me that > to > > > expect that even the very limited grammar found in this paragraph you > are > > > reading should somehow be "thrown up" by the words I am using and their > > > elective affinities is a little like expecting medieval cathedrals to > be > > > thrown up by the mutual attraction of the stones that compose them. > > > > > > Yes, I know. Consonants are what happen in the absence of vowels (at > the > > > ends of vowel phrases). Vowels are what happen at the ends of > consonants. > > > As soon as you have breath, vocal cord vibration, and a beginning and > an > > > end to it, you have the primitive structure (Optional Consonant) > > Mandatory > > > Vowel (Optioinal Consonant), and from this we can derive all the > possible > > > syllable structures of any language. You can do the same trick at any > > level > > > of language: If you have a morpheme like "work" or "play" you can add a > > > bound morpheme to either end ("re~" and/or "~ed"),and if you have a > > clause > > > like "Work!" you can add a bound clause to either end ("If you are so > > > willing~" and/or "so as to enrich yourselves!") and the existence of > xmca > > > itself shows how this principle works on units above the clause--Mike's > > > last post is not really intelligible without my preceding one, and mine > > is > > > not really intelligible without James's, etc. > > > > > > But I'm not talking about the various forms of language, potential and > > > real; these are of course the affordances of the stuff of which > language > > is > > > made, just as the limits of what you can do on a canvas has something > to > > do > > > with the consistency of the paint. I'm talking about what people > actually > > > do and not just what they may or might do. So for example when we look > at > > > "To be or not to be" or at the speeches we find in "Shajiabang" or > even, > > as > > > Mike suggests, at the language of everyday life, we find that vowels > tend > > > to carry the feeling of what we say (that's why they are elongated > > > in tonics and why they are directed in tonality). Consonants, on the > > other > > > hand, work better for the nuances of thinking. That's why we sing the > > > vowels, but spell with consonants; why Ophelia says "Oh what a noble > mind > > > is here o'erthrone!" but Hamlet says "Nymph, in thy orisons be all my > > sins > > > remembered!". And so once again we find that feeling and thinking are > > both > > > linked and distinct, to say the which is surely to say no more and no > > less > > > than to say that they are joined/separated by a dialectical leap. > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > From R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk Sun Oct 29 02:10:18 2017 From: R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk (Rod Parker-Rees) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 09:10:18 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks David, I am always fascinated by insights into how language is used in different ways to nuance and shade meanings. Can you explain how these couplets are 'antithetical'? The second one clearly juxtaposes merging and emerging but I was intrigued by how the furnace burning with a pure green hue is seen as an antithesis. All the best, Rod -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg Sent: 29 October 2017 00:28 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus You notice that James gives us two antithetical couplets, each of four syllables (Chinese, like child protolanguage, doesn't differentiate vowels and consonants). ???? ???? L? hu? ch?n q?ng (the fire of the furnace burns a pure green hue) Ch? sh?n r? hu? (The god emerges and merges, comes out and goes in) I haven't actually rendered the feeling that a Chinese person feels on hearing these expressions, any more than the words "consummate" or "superb" communicate the thought. For one thing, my translation is too labored and literal; a a Chinese person doesn't analyze so literally and the imagery is largley "automatized" rather than visualized. For another, the four character line has a history that goes all the way back to the Book of Songs (11th C BCE) and all the way up to the antithetical couplets peasants put on their doorways as Spring Festival in the the countryside (But James is right: the idea of antithetical couplets is a kind of natural dialectic built into the Chinese language. Somedays, like today, I find it that it influences the way I write in English.) David Kellogg On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 6:21 AM, James Ma wrote: > I often find it interesting to read David?s words, good and catalytic > to me. > > I?ve been working on the Peirce-Vygotsky project and Peirce?s idea of > final logical interpretant which I take to be a qualitative > transformation, perhaps equivalent to ?a dialectical leap?. To me, > this transformation is not only attributable to an accrued > quantitative change but also bears itself the heritage of all the > earlier qualitative changes. So, the resultant final logical > interpretant encapsulates both qualitative and quantitative changes. > > By the way, on the face of it, ?a dialectical leap? is a more > congenial and customary concept to most Chinese people (from Mainland) > due to historical reasons. > > In a stage drama, I agree with David that an actor?s privileged access > is a real problem for him. This privileged access will have to be > calibrated or attuned to a dialectical leap in such a way that the > actor needs to make a choice from the plenitude of signs that are > constantly on the move both consciously and subliminally. However, in > the case of Peking opera, a dialectical leap is far more complex since > there is more to it. The actor is involved in an organic combination > of vocal performance, acrobatics and dance etc. Perhaps, dialectical > leap is not quite a right word to reflect what is perceived as the > essence of Peking opera: ???? consummate, and ???? > superb. > > James > > > *James Ma* *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > * > > > On 28 October 2017 at 00:26, David Kellogg wrote: > > > I've always been restless with the idea that language is a > self-organizing > > system, or that it has a "fractal" structure in the sense of the > > "self-similarity" we find in a fern leaf--the same structure at > > every level. I suppose my impatience is ideological: I believe > > language organization is semantically driven (and semantic structure > > is a realization/transformation of some of the structures found in contexts). > So > > I don't think that vowels and consonants organize themselves into > syllables > > without human intentions, nor do I think that syllables will form > > words unless somebody makes them do it. As for grammar, it seems to > > me that to expect that even the very limited grammar found in this > > paragraph you are reading should somehow be "thrown up" by the words > > I am using and their elective affinities is a little like expecting > > medieval cathedrals to be thrown up by the mutual attraction of the stones that compose them. > > > > Yes, I know. Consonants are what happen in the absence of vowels (at > > the ends of vowel phrases). Vowels are what happen at the ends of consonants. > > As soon as you have breath, vocal cord vibration, and a beginning > > and an end to it, you have the primitive structure (Optional > > Consonant) > Mandatory > > Vowel (Optioinal Consonant), and from this we can derive all the > > possible syllable structures of any language. You can do the same > > trick at any > level > > of language: If you have a morpheme like "work" or "play" you can > > add a bound morpheme to either end ("re~" and/or "~ed"),and if you > > have a > clause > > like "Work!" you can add a bound clause to either end ("If you are > > so willing~" and/or "so as to enrich yourselves!") and the existence > > of xmca itself shows how this principle works on units above the > > clause--Mike's last post is not really intelligible without my > > preceding one, and mine > is > > not really intelligible without James's, etc. > > > > But I'm not talking about the various forms of language, potential > > and real; these are of course the affordances of the stuff of which > > language > is > > made, just as the limits of what you can do on a canvas has > > something to > do > > with the consistency of the paint. I'm talking about what people > > actually do and not just what they may or might do. So for example > > when we look at "To be or not to be" or at the speeches we find in > > "Shajiabang" or even, > as > > Mike suggests, at the language of everyday life, we find that vowels > > tend to carry the feeling of what we say (that's why they are > > elongated in tonics and why they are directed in tonality). > > Consonants, on the > other > > hand, work better for the nuances of thinking. That's why we sing > > the vowels, but spell with consonants; why Ophelia says "Oh what a > > noble mind is here o'erthrone!" but Hamlet says "Nymph, in thy > > orisons be all my > sins > > remembered!". And so once again we find that feeling and thinking > > are > both > > linked and distinct, to say the which is surely to say no more and > > no > less > > than to say that they are joined/separated by a dialectical leap. > > > > David Kellogg > > > ________________________________ [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form. From ivan@llaisdy.com Sun Oct 29 02:48:01 2017 From: ivan@llaisdy.com (Ivan Uemlianin) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 09:48:01 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56616ABC-C985-43D0-BAFD-B725955BCAAD@llaisdy.com> They are neither antithetical nor couplets. They are both Chinese idioms (?? ch?ngy? "set phrase") meaning roughly "superlatively good" (as James wrote). nb the ? q?ng in the first phrase is better translated into English as blue. ? is one of those colour terms that can mean green or blue. Ivan -- festina lente > On 29 Oct 2017, at 09:10, Rod Parker-Rees wrote: > > Thanks David, > > I am always fascinated by insights into how language is used in different ways to nuance and shade meanings. > > Can you explain how these couplets are 'antithetical'? The second one clearly juxtaposes merging and emerging but I was intrigued by how the furnace burning with a pure green hue is seen as an antithesis. > > All the best, > > Rod > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > Sent: 29 October 2017 00:28 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus > > You notice that James gives us two antithetical couplets, each of four syllables (Chinese, like child protolanguage, doesn't differentiate vowels and consonants). > > ???? > ???? > > L? hu? ch?n q?ng (the fire of the furnace burns a pure green hue) Ch? sh?n r? hu? (The god emerges and merges, comes out and goes in) > > I haven't actually rendered the feeling that a Chinese person feels on hearing these expressions, any more than the words "consummate" or "superb" communicate the thought. > > For one thing, my translation is too labored and literal; a a Chinese person doesn't analyze so literally and the imagery is largley "automatized" rather than visualized. > For another, the four character line has a history that goes all the way back to the Book of Songs (11th C BCE) and all the way up to the antithetical couplets peasants put on their doorways as Spring Festival in the the countryside > > (But James is right: the idea of antithetical couplets is a kind of natural dialectic built into the Chinese language. > Somedays, like today, I find it that it influences the way I write in > English.) > > David Kellogg > > > >> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 6:21 AM, James Ma wrote: >> >> I often find it interesting to read David?s words, good and catalytic >> to me. >> >> I?ve been working on the Peirce-Vygotsky project and Peirce?s idea of >> final logical interpretant which I take to be a qualitative >> transformation, perhaps equivalent to ?a dialectical leap?. To me, >> this transformation is not only attributable to an accrued >> quantitative change but also bears itself the heritage of all the >> earlier qualitative changes. So, the resultant final logical >> interpretant encapsulates both qualitative and quantitative changes. >> >> By the way, on the face of it, ?a dialectical leap? is a more >> congenial and customary concept to most Chinese people (from Mainland) >> due to historical reasons. >> >> In a stage drama, I agree with David that an actor?s privileged access >> is a real problem for him. This privileged access will have to be >> calibrated or attuned to a dialectical leap in such a way that the >> actor needs to make a choice from the plenitude of signs that are >> constantly on the move both consciously and subliminally. However, in >> the case of Peking opera, a dialectical leap is far more complex since >> there is more to it. The actor is involved in an organic combination >> of vocal performance, acrobatics and dance etc. Perhaps, dialectical >> leap is not quite a right word to reflect what is perceived as the >> essence of Peking opera: ???? consummate, and ???? >> superb. >> >> James >> >> >> *James Ma* *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >> * >> >> >>> On 28 October 2017 at 00:26, David Kellogg wrote: >>> >>> I've always been restless with the idea that language is a >> self-organizing >>> system, or that it has a "fractal" structure in the sense of the >>> "self-similarity" we find in a fern leaf--the same structure at >>> every level. I suppose my impatience is ideological: I believe >>> language organization is semantically driven (and semantic structure >>> is a realization/transformation of some of the structures found in contexts). >> So >>> I don't think that vowels and consonants organize themselves into >> syllables >>> without human intentions, nor do I think that syllables will form >>> words unless somebody makes them do it. As for grammar, it seems to >>> me that to expect that even the very limited grammar found in this >>> paragraph you are reading should somehow be "thrown up" by the words >>> I am using and their elective affinities is a little like expecting >>> medieval cathedrals to be thrown up by the mutual attraction of the stones that compose them. >>> >>> Yes, I know. Consonants are what happen in the absence of vowels (at >>> the ends of vowel phrases). Vowels are what happen at the ends of consonants. >>> As soon as you have breath, vocal cord vibration, and a beginning >>> and an end to it, you have the primitive structure (Optional >>> Consonant) >> Mandatory >>> Vowel (Optioinal Consonant), and from this we can derive all the >>> possible syllable structures of any language. You can do the same >>> trick at any >> level >>> of language: If you have a morpheme like "work" or "play" you can >>> add a bound morpheme to either end ("re~" and/or "~ed"),and if you >>> have a >> clause >>> like "Work!" you can add a bound clause to either end ("If you are >>> so willing~" and/or "so as to enrich yourselves!") and the existence >>> of xmca itself shows how this principle works on units above the >>> clause--Mike's last post is not really intelligible without my >>> preceding one, and mine >> is >>> not really intelligible without James's, etc. >>> >>> But I'm not talking about the various forms of language, potential >>> and real; these are of course the affordances of the stuff of which >>> language >> is >>> made, just as the limits of what you can do on a canvas has >>> something to >> do >>> with the consistency of the paint. I'm talking about what people >>> actually do and not just what they may or might do. So for example >>> when we look at "To be or not to be" or at the speeches we find in >>> "Shajiabang" or even, >> as >>> Mike suggests, at the language of everyday life, we find that vowels >>> tend to carry the feeling of what we say (that's why they are >>> elongated in tonics and why they are directed in tonality). >>> Consonants, on the >> other >>> hand, work better for the nuances of thinking. That's why we sing >>> the vowels, but spell with consonants; why Ophelia says "Oh what a >>> noble mind is here o'erthrone!" but Hamlet says "Nymph, in thy >>> orisons be all my >> sins >>> remembered!". And so once again we find that feeling and thinking >>> are >> both >>> linked and distinct, to say the which is surely to say no more and >>> no >> less >>> than to say that they are joined/separated by a dialectical leap. >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> >> > ________________________________ > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] > > This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form. > From jamesma320@gmail.com Sun Oct 29 03:00:10 2017 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 10:00:10 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In Chinese grammatical terms, the first one ???? is the "subject-predicate" type, for example, ???? masculinity and femininity are complementary to each other; the second one ???? the "symmetric relation" type, for example, ???? (of vocal performance) clear articulation of the lyrics and perfect execution of the tone. James On 29 October 2017 at 09:10, Rod Parker-Rees wrote: > Thanks David, > > I am always fascinated by insights into how language is used in different > ways to nuance and shade meanings. > > Can you explain how these couplets are 'antithetical'? The second one > clearly juxtaposes merging and emerging but I was intrigued by how the > furnace burning with a pure green hue is seen as an antithesis. > > All the best, > > Rod > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > Sent: 29 October 2017 00:28 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus > > You notice that James gives us two antithetical couplets, each of four > syllables (Chinese, like child protolanguage, doesn't differentiate vowels > and consonants). > > ???? > ???? > > L? hu? ch?n q?ng (the fire of the furnace burns a pure green hue) Ch? > sh?n r? hu? (The god emerges and merges, comes out and goes in) > > I haven't actually rendered the feeling that a Chinese person feels on > hearing these expressions, any more than the words "consummate" or "superb" > communicate the thought. > > For one thing, my translation is too labored and literal; a a Chinese > person doesn't analyze so literally and the imagery is largley > "automatized" rather than visualized. > For another, the four character line has a history that goes all the way > back to the Book of Songs (11th C BCE) and all the way up to the > antithetical couplets peasants put on their doorways as Spring Festival in > the the countryside > > (But James is right: the idea of antithetical couplets is a kind of > natural dialectic built into the Chinese language. > Somedays, like today, I find it that it influences the way I write in > English.) > > David Kellogg > > > > On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 6:21 AM, James Ma wrote: > > > I often find it interesting to read David?s words, good and catalytic > > to me. > > > > I?ve been working on the Peirce-Vygotsky project and Peirce?s idea of > > final logical interpretant which I take to be a qualitative > > transformation, perhaps equivalent to ?a dialectical leap?. To me, > > this transformation is not only attributable to an accrued > > quantitative change but also bears itself the heritage of all the > > earlier qualitative changes. So, the resultant final logical > > interpretant encapsulates both qualitative and quantitative changes. > > > > By the way, on the face of it, ?a dialectical leap? is a more > > congenial and customary concept to most Chinese people (from Mainland) > > due to historical reasons. > > > > In a stage drama, I agree with David that an actor?s privileged access > > is a real problem for him. This privileged access will have to be > > calibrated or attuned to a dialectical leap in such a way that the > > actor needs to make a choice from the plenitude of signs that are > > constantly on the move both consciously and subliminally. However, in > > the case of Peking opera, a dialectical leap is far more complex since > > there is more to it. The actor is involved in an organic combination > > of vocal performance, acrobatics and dance etc. Perhaps, dialectical > > leap is not quite a right word to reflect what is perceived as the > > essence of Peking opera: ???? consummate, and ???? > > superb. > > > > James > > > > > > *James Ma* *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > > * > > > > > > On 28 October 2017 at 00:26, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > > I've always been restless with the idea that language is a > > self-organizing > > > system, or that it has a "fractal" structure in the sense of the > > > "self-similarity" we find in a fern leaf--the same structure at > > > every level. I suppose my impatience is ideological: I believe > > > language organization is semantically driven (and semantic structure > > > is a realization/transformation of some of the structures found in > contexts). > > So > > > I don't think that vowels and consonants organize themselves into > > syllables > > > without human intentions, nor do I think that syllables will form > > > words unless somebody makes them do it. As for grammar, it seems to > > > me that to expect that even the very limited grammar found in this > > > paragraph you are reading should somehow be "thrown up" by the words > > > I am using and their elective affinities is a little like expecting > > > medieval cathedrals to be thrown up by the mutual attraction of the > stones that compose them. > > > > > > Yes, I know. Consonants are what happen in the absence of vowels (at > > > the ends of vowel phrases). Vowels are what happen at the ends of > consonants. > > > As soon as you have breath, vocal cord vibration, and a beginning > > > and an end to it, you have the primitive structure (Optional > > > Consonant) > > Mandatory > > > Vowel (Optioinal Consonant), and from this we can derive all the > > > possible syllable structures of any language. You can do the same > > > trick at any > > level > > > of language: If you have a morpheme like "work" or "play" you can > > > add a bound morpheme to either end ("re~" and/or "~ed"),and if you > > > have a > > clause > > > like "Work!" you can add a bound clause to either end ("If you are > > > so willing~" and/or "so as to enrich yourselves!") and the existence > > > of xmca itself shows how this principle works on units above the > > > clause--Mike's last post is not really intelligible without my > > > preceding one, and mine > > is > > > not really intelligible without James's, etc. > > > > > > But I'm not talking about the various forms of language, potential > > > and real; these are of course the affordances of the stuff of which > > > language > > is > > > made, just as the limits of what you can do on a canvas has > > > something to > > do > > > with the consistency of the paint. I'm talking about what people > > > actually do and not just what they may or might do. So for example > > > when we look at "To be or not to be" or at the speeches we find in > > > "Shajiabang" or even, > > as > > > Mike suggests, at the language of everyday life, we find that vowels > > > tend to carry the feeling of what we say (that's why they are > > > elongated in tonics and why they are directed in tonality). > > > Consonants, on the > > other > > > hand, work better for the nuances of thinking. That's why we sing > > > the vowels, but spell with consonants; why Ophelia says "Oh what a > > > noble mind is here o'erthrone!" but Hamlet says "Nymph, in thy > > > orisons be all my > > sins > > > remembered!". And so once again we find that feeling and thinking > > > are > > both > > > linked and distinct, to say the which is surely to say no more and > > > no > > less > > > than to say that they are joined/separated by a dialectical leap. > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > ________________________________ > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] //www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for > the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the > intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the > information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. > If you have received this email in error please let the sender know > immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not > necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts > no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails > and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility > for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its > attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied > by an official order form. > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Oct 29 13:59:23 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 05:59:23 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Chinese phonologists didn't use romanization until the 1950s (and even then it was mostly . Even in old rhyming dictionaries, the main unit of analysis is the morpho-syllable (i.e. the written character, but spoken). The dictionaries are conscious of an onset and a rhyme, but not a vowel or a consonant. You can see that the "rhyme" (that is, the "tail" of the syllable) is always either a vowel or a nasal, but not a stop. Vowels and consonants don't explain this (and they don't explain tones either), so it's hardly surprising that Chinese phonologists were not interested in them.. Now, suppose we consider Chinese as the OPPOSITE of English. English puts articulation (vowels and consonants) at the centre of its phonological description and considers prosoday (intonation and stress) to be peripheral, but Chinese is the other way around. We can easily descibe every syllable in Chinese as a set of half a dozen prosodic features: initial posture, final posture, voice onset, aperture (open or closed), and of course tone. This is a much better description, and it doesn't use vowels or consonants. I think that "chengyu" doesn't really capture the literary flavor very well, and that was what I wanted to say when I compared them to antithetical couplets. By introducing them in pairs, James is introducing two important semantic features of Chinese which are lost on non-Sinophones, and which are essential to understanding the specific dialectics of Chinese: the four-syllable line, which is of great antiquity, and the tendency to produce couplets. I always thought that "chengyu" are more prosaic, more like proverbs. But Ivan, as usual, knows better! David Kellogg On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 7:00 PM, James Ma wrote: > In Chinese grammatical terms, the first one ???? is the "subject-predicate" > type, for example, ???? masculinity and femininity are complementary to > each other; the second one ???? the "symmetric relation" type, for example, > ???? (of vocal performance) clear articulation of the lyrics and perfect > execution of the tone. > > James > > On 29 October 2017 at 09:10, Rod Parker-Rees > > wrote: > > > Thanks David, > > > > I am always fascinated by insights into how language is used in different > > ways to nuance and shade meanings. > > > > Can you explain how these couplets are 'antithetical'? The second one > > clearly juxtaposes merging and emerging but I was intrigued by how the > > furnace burning with a pure green hue is seen as an antithesis. > > > > All the best, > > > > Rod > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ > > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > > Sent: 29 October 2017 00:28 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus > > > > You notice that James gives us two antithetical couplets, each of four > > syllables (Chinese, like child protolanguage, doesn't differentiate > vowels > > and consonants). > > > > ???? > > ???? > > > > L? hu? ch?n q?ng (the fire of the furnace burns a pure green hue) Ch? > > sh?n r? hu? (The god emerges and merges, comes out and goes in) > > > > I haven't actually rendered the feeling that a Chinese person feels on > > hearing these expressions, any more than the words "consummate" or > "superb" > > communicate the thought. > > > > For one thing, my translation is too labored and literal; a a Chinese > > person doesn't analyze so literally and the imagery is largley > > "automatized" rather than visualized. > > For another, the four character line has a history that goes all the way > > back to the Book of Songs (11th C BCE) and all the way up to the > > antithetical couplets peasants put on their doorways as Spring Festival > in > > the the countryside > > > > (But James is right: the idea of antithetical couplets is a kind of > > natural dialectic built into the Chinese language. > > Somedays, like today, I find it that it influences the way I write in > > English.) > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 6:21 AM, James Ma wrote: > > > > > I often find it interesting to read David?s words, good and catalytic > > > to me. > > > > > > I?ve been working on the Peirce-Vygotsky project and Peirce?s idea of > > > final logical interpretant which I take to be a qualitative > > > transformation, perhaps equivalent to ?a dialectical leap?. To me, > > > this transformation is not only attributable to an accrued > > > quantitative change but also bears itself the heritage of all the > > > earlier qualitative changes. So, the resultant final logical > > > interpretant encapsulates both qualitative and quantitative changes. > > > > > > By the way, on the face of it, ?a dialectical leap? is a more > > > congenial and customary concept to most Chinese people (from Mainland) > > > due to historical reasons. > > > > > > In a stage drama, I agree with David that an actor?s privileged access > > > is a real problem for him. This privileged access will have to be > > > calibrated or attuned to a dialectical leap in such a way that the > > > actor needs to make a choice from the plenitude of signs that are > > > constantly on the move both consciously and subliminally. However, in > > > the case of Peking opera, a dialectical leap is far more complex since > > > there is more to it. The actor is involved in an organic combination > > > of vocal performance, acrobatics and dance etc. Perhaps, dialectical > > > leap is not quite a right word to reflect what is perceived as the > > > essence of Peking opera: ???? consummate, and ???? > > > superb. > > > > > > James > > > > > > > > > *James Ma* *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > > > * > > > > > > > > > On 28 October 2017 at 00:26, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > > > > > I've always been restless with the idea that language is a > > > self-organizing > > > > system, or that it has a "fractal" structure in the sense of the > > > > "self-similarity" we find in a fern leaf--the same structure at > > > > every level. I suppose my impatience is ideological: I believe > > > > language organization is semantically driven (and semantic structure > > > > is a realization/transformation of some of the structures found in > > contexts). > > > So > > > > I don't think that vowels and consonants organize themselves into > > > syllables > > > > without human intentions, nor do I think that syllables will form > > > > words unless somebody makes them do it. As for grammar, it seems to > > > > me that to expect that even the very limited grammar found in this > > > > paragraph you are reading should somehow be "thrown up" by the words > > > > I am using and their elective affinities is a little like expecting > > > > medieval cathedrals to be thrown up by the mutual attraction of the > > stones that compose them. > > > > > > > > Yes, I know. Consonants are what happen in the absence of vowels (at > > > > the ends of vowel phrases). Vowels are what happen at the ends of > > consonants. > > > > As soon as you have breath, vocal cord vibration, and a beginning > > > > and an end to it, you have the primitive structure (Optional > > > > Consonant) > > > Mandatory > > > > Vowel (Optioinal Consonant), and from this we can derive all the > > > > possible syllable structures of any language. You can do the same > > > > trick at any > > > level > > > > of language: If you have a morpheme like "work" or "play" you can > > > > add a bound morpheme to either end ("re~" and/or "~ed"),and if you > > > > have a > > > clause > > > > like "Work!" you can add a bound clause to either end ("If you are > > > > so willing~" and/or "so as to enrich yourselves!") and the existence > > > > of xmca itself shows how this principle works on units above the > > > > clause--Mike's last post is not really intelligible without my > > > > preceding one, and mine > > > is > > > > not really intelligible without James's, etc. > > > > > > > > But I'm not talking about the various forms of language, potential > > > > and real; these are of course the affordances of the stuff of which > > > > language > > > is > > > > made, just as the limits of what you can do on a canvas has > > > > something to > > > do > > > > with the consistency of the paint. I'm talking about what people > > > > actually do and not just what they may or might do. So for example > > > > when we look at "To be or not to be" or at the speeches we find in > > > > "Shajiabang" or even, > > > as > > > > Mike suggests, at the language of everyday life, we find that vowels > > > > tend to carry the feeling of what we say (that's why they are > > > > elongated in tonics and why they are directed in tonality). > > > > Consonants, on the > > > other > > > > hand, work better for the nuances of thinking. That's why we sing > > > > the vowels, but spell with consonants; why Ophelia says "Oh what a > > > > noble mind is here o'erthrone!" but Hamlet says "Nymph, in thy > > > > orisons be all my > > > sins > > > > remembered!". And so once again we find that feeling and thinking > > > > are > > > both > > > > linked and distinct, to say the which is surely to say no more and > > > > no > > > less > > > > than to say that they are joined/separated by a dialectical leap. > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] > //www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > > > This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for > > the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the > > intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the > > information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on > it. > > If you have received this email in error please let the sender know > > immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not > > necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts > > no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan > emails > > and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility > > for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its > > attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied > > by an official order form. > > > > > From ivan@llaisdy.com Sun Oct 29 14:18:23 2017 From: ivan@llaisdy.com (Ivan Uemlianin) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 21:18:23 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51C8AFD6-52B4-4C50-85BA-B7BDE4411628@llaisdy.com> Without referring to vowels, how would one describe the phonological difference in Mandarin between ? and ?? Ivan -- festina lente > On 29 Oct 2017, at 20:59, David Kellogg wrote: > > Chinese phonologists didn't use romanization until the 1950s (and even then > it was mostly . Even in old rhyming dictionaries, the main unit of analysis > is the morpho-syllable (i.e. the written character, but spoken). The > dictionaries are conscious of an onset and a rhyme, but not a vowel or a > consonant. You can see that the "rhyme" (that is, the "tail" of the > syllable) is always either a vowel or a nasal, but not a stop. Vowels and > consonants don't explain this (and they don't explain tones either), so > it's hardly surprising that Chinese phonologists were not interested in > them.. > > Now, suppose we consider Chinese as the OPPOSITE of English. English puts > articulation (vowels and consonants) at the centre of its phonological > description and considers prosoday (intonation and stress) to be > peripheral, but Chinese is the other way around. We can easily descibe > every syllable in Chinese as a set of half a dozen prosodic features: > initial posture, final posture, voice onset, aperture (open or closed), and > of course tone. This is a much better description, and it doesn't use > vowels or consonants. > > I think that "chengyu" doesn't really capture the literary flavor very > well, and that was what I wanted to say when I compared them to > antithetical couplets. By introducing them in pairs, James is introducing > two important semantic features of Chinese which are lost on > non-Sinophones, and which are essential to understanding the specific > dialectics of Chinese: the four-syllable line, which is of great antiquity, > and the tendency to produce couplets. I always thought that "chengyu" are > more prosaic, more like proverbs. But Ivan, as usual, knows better! > > David Kellogg > >> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 7:00 PM, James Ma wrote: >> >> In Chinese grammatical terms, the first one ???? is the "subject-predicate" >> type, for example, ???? masculinity and femininity are complementary to >> each other; the second one ???? the "symmetric relation" type, for example, >> ???? (of vocal performance) clear articulation of the lyrics and perfect >> execution of the tone. >> >> James >> >> On 29 October 2017 at 09:10, Rod Parker-Rees >> >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks David, >>> >>> I am always fascinated by insights into how language is used in different >>> ways to nuance and shade meanings. >>> >>> Can you explain how these couplets are 'antithetical'? The second one >>> clearly juxtaposes merging and emerging but I was intrigued by how the >>> furnace burning with a pure green hue is seen as an antithesis. >>> >>> All the best, >>> >>> Rod >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ >>> mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg >>> Sent: 29 October 2017 00:28 >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus >>> >>> You notice that James gives us two antithetical couplets, each of four >>> syllables (Chinese, like child protolanguage, doesn't differentiate >> vowels >>> and consonants). >>> >>> ???? >>> ???? >>> >>> L? hu? ch?n q?ng (the fire of the furnace burns a pure green hue) Ch? >>> sh?n r? hu? (The god emerges and merges, comes out and goes in) >>> >>> I haven't actually rendered the feeling that a Chinese person feels on >>> hearing these expressions, any more than the words "consummate" or >> "superb" >>> communicate the thought. >>> >>> For one thing, my translation is too labored and literal; a a Chinese >>> person doesn't analyze so literally and the imagery is largley >>> "automatized" rather than visualized. >>> For another, the four character line has a history that goes all the way >>> back to the Book of Songs (11th C BCE) and all the way up to the >>> antithetical couplets peasants put on their doorways as Spring Festival >> in >>> the the countryside >>> >>> (But James is right: the idea of antithetical couplets is a kind of >>> natural dialectic built into the Chinese language. >>> Somedays, like today, I find it that it influences the way I write in >>> English.) >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 6:21 AM, James Ma wrote: >>>> >>>> I often find it interesting to read David?s words, good and catalytic >>>> to me. >>>> >>>> I?ve been working on the Peirce-Vygotsky project and Peirce?s idea of >>>> final logical interpretant which I take to be a qualitative >>>> transformation, perhaps equivalent to ?a dialectical leap?. To me, >>>> this transformation is not only attributable to an accrued >>>> quantitative change but also bears itself the heritage of all the >>>> earlier qualitative changes. So, the resultant final logical >>>> interpretant encapsulates both qualitative and quantitative changes. >>>> >>>> By the way, on the face of it, ?a dialectical leap? is a more >>>> congenial and customary concept to most Chinese people (from Mainland) >>>> due to historical reasons. >>>> >>>> In a stage drama, I agree with David that an actor?s privileged access >>>> is a real problem for him. This privileged access will have to be >>>> calibrated or attuned to a dialectical leap in such a way that the >>>> actor needs to make a choice from the plenitude of signs that are >>>> constantly on the move both consciously and subliminally. However, in >>>> the case of Peking opera, a dialectical leap is far more complex since >>>> there is more to it. The actor is involved in an organic combination >>>> of vocal performance, acrobatics and dance etc. Perhaps, dialectical >>>> leap is not quite a right word to reflect what is perceived as the >>>> essence of Peking opera: ???? consummate, and ???? >>>> superb. >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> >>>> *James Ma* *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>> * >>>> >>>> >>>> On 28 October 2017 at 00:26, David Kellogg >> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I've always been restless with the idea that language is a >>>> self-organizing >>>>> system, or that it has a "fractal" structure in the sense of the >>>>> "self-similarity" we find in a fern leaf--the same structure at >>>>> every level. I suppose my impatience is ideological: I believe >>>>> language organization is semantically driven (and semantic structure >>>>> is a realization/transformation of some of the structures found in >>> contexts). >>>> So >>>>> I don't think that vowels and consonants organize themselves into >>>> syllables >>>>> without human intentions, nor do I think that syllables will form >>>>> words unless somebody makes them do it. As for grammar, it seems to >>>>> me that to expect that even the very limited grammar found in this >>>>> paragraph you are reading should somehow be "thrown up" by the words >>>>> I am using and their elective affinities is a little like expecting >>>>> medieval cathedrals to be thrown up by the mutual attraction of the >>> stones that compose them. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I know. Consonants are what happen in the absence of vowels (at >>>>> the ends of vowel phrases). Vowels are what happen at the ends of >>> consonants. >>>>> As soon as you have breath, vocal cord vibration, and a beginning >>>>> and an end to it, you have the primitive structure (Optional >>>>> Consonant) >>>> Mandatory >>>>> Vowel (Optioinal Consonant), and from this we can derive all the >>>>> possible syllable structures of any language. You can do the same >>>>> trick at any >>>> level >>>>> of language: If you have a morpheme like "work" or "play" you can >>>>> add a bound morpheme to either end ("re~" and/or "~ed"),and if you >>>>> have a >>>> clause >>>>> like "Work!" you can add a bound clause to either end ("If you are >>>>> so willing~" and/or "so as to enrich yourselves!") and the existence >>>>> of xmca itself shows how this principle works on units above the >>>>> clause--Mike's last post is not really intelligible without my >>>>> preceding one, and mine >>>> is >>>>> not really intelligible without James's, etc. >>>>> >>>>> But I'm not talking about the various forms of language, potential >>>>> and real; these are of course the affordances of the stuff of which >>>>> language >>>> is >>>>> made, just as the limits of what you can do on a canvas has >>>>> something to >>>> do >>>>> with the consistency of the paint. I'm talking about what people >>>>> actually do and not just what they may or might do. So for example >>>>> when we look at "To be or not to be" or at the speeches we find in >>>>> "Shajiabang" or even, >>>> as >>>>> Mike suggests, at the language of everyday life, we find that vowels >>>>> tend to carry the feeling of what we say (that's why they are >>>>> elongated in tonics and why they are directed in tonality). >>>>> Consonants, on the >>>> other >>>>> hand, work better for the nuances of thinking. That's why we sing >>>>> the vowels, but spell with consonants; why Ophelia says "Oh what a >>>>> noble mind is here o'erthrone!" but Hamlet says "Nymph, in thy >>>>> orisons be all my >>>> sins >>>>> remembered!". And so once again we find that feeling and thinking >>>>> are >>>> both >>>>> linked and distinct, to say the which is surely to say no more and >>>>> no >>>> less >>>>> than to say that they are joined/separated by a dialectical leap. >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> >>>> >>> ________________________________ >>> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]>> //www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> >>> >>> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for >>> the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the >>> intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the >>> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on >> it. >>> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know >>> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not >>> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts >>> no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan >> emails >>> and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility >>> for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its >>> attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied >>> by an official order form. >>> >>> >> From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Oct 29 15:55:11 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:55:11 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus In-Reply-To: <51C8AFD6-52B4-4C50-85BA-B7BDE4411628@llaisdy.com> References: <51C8AFD6-52B4-4C50-85BA-B7BDE4411628@llaisdy.com> Message-ID: Halliday would describe it as a difference in aperture. "Man" is open, while "men" is half-open. You can feel and even see your jaw moving when you move from one to the other. Aperture is best thought of dynamically, as a movement from one posture to another rather than as a single static posture, as when we describe vowels. So once again it is better thought of as prosody than as articulation. Take a look at this: https://functionallinguistics.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2196-419X-1-2 Halliday's model is not as idiosyncratic--or as language specific--as it seems. A lot of linguists agree that phonemes are essentially reifications of graphemes, and that syllables are a better model for understanding spoken phonology. In fact, when we read Vygotsky, we see that he uses the term "phoneme" in a rather strange way: he doesn't mean vowels and consonants, because these actually DON'T have any meaning except in comparison to other possible selections a speaker might have made but didn't. In fact, the example he gives of "phonemes" in the Lectures on Pedology are Russian case endings. Russian case endings are actually not phonemes at all but morphemes. Vygotsky went to school with Jakobson and probably studied with Trubetskoy. So for him a "phoneme" is really what we would call a morpho-phoneme. More like a Chinese character than a vowel or a consonant! David Kellogg On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Ivan Uemlianin wrote: > Without referring to vowels, how would one describe the phonological > difference in Mandarin between ? and ?? > > Ivan > > -- > festina lente > > > > On 29 Oct 2017, at 20:59, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > Chinese phonologists didn't use romanization until the 1950s (and even > then > > it was mostly . Even in old rhyming dictionaries, the main unit of > analysis > > is the morpho-syllable (i.e. the written character, but spoken). The > > dictionaries are conscious of an onset and a rhyme, but not a vowel or a > > consonant. You can see that the "rhyme" (that is, the "tail" of the > > syllable) is always either a vowel or a nasal, but not a stop. Vowels and > > consonants don't explain this (and they don't explain tones either), so > > it's hardly surprising that Chinese phonologists were not interested in > > them.. > > > > Now, suppose we consider Chinese as the OPPOSITE of English. English puts > > articulation (vowels and consonants) at the centre of its phonological > > description and considers prosoday (intonation and stress) to be > > peripheral, but Chinese is the other way around. We can easily descibe > > every syllable in Chinese as a set of half a dozen prosodic features: > > initial posture, final posture, voice onset, aperture (open or closed), > and > > of course tone. This is a much better description, and it doesn't use > > vowels or consonants. > > > > I think that "chengyu" doesn't really capture the literary flavor very > > well, and that was what I wanted to say when I compared them to > > antithetical couplets. By introducing them in pairs, James is introducing > > two important semantic features of Chinese which are lost on > > non-Sinophones, and which are essential to understanding the specific > > dialectics of Chinese: the four-syllable line, which is of great > antiquity, > > and the tendency to produce couplets. I always thought that "chengyu" are > > more prosaic, more like proverbs. But Ivan, as usual, knows better! > > > > David Kellogg > > > >> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 7:00 PM, James Ma wrote: > >> > >> In Chinese grammatical terms, the first one ???? is the > "subject-predicate" > >> type, for example, ???? masculinity and femininity are complementary to > >> each other; the second one ???? the "symmetric relation" type, for > example, > >> ???? (of vocal performance) clear articulation of the lyrics and perfect > >> execution of the tone. > >> > >> James > >> > >> On 29 October 2017 at 09:10, Rod Parker-Rees < > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk > >>> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Thanks David, > >>> > >>> I am always fascinated by insights into how language is used in > different > >>> ways to nuance and shade meanings. > >>> > >>> Can you explain how these couplets are 'antithetical'? The second one > >>> clearly juxtaposes merging and emerging but I was intrigued by how the > >>> furnace burning with a pure green hue is seen as an antithesis. > >>> > >>> All the best, > >>> > >>> Rod > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ > >>> mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > >>> Sent: 29 October 2017 00:28 > >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus > >>> > >>> You notice that James gives us two antithetical couplets, each of four > >>> syllables (Chinese, like child protolanguage, doesn't differentiate > >> vowels > >>> and consonants). > >>> > >>> ???? > >>> ???? > >>> > >>> L? hu? ch?n q?ng (the fire of the furnace burns a pure green hue) Ch? > >>> sh?n r? hu? (The god emerges and merges, comes out and goes in) > >>> > >>> I haven't actually rendered the feeling that a Chinese person feels on > >>> hearing these expressions, any more than the words "consummate" or > >> "superb" > >>> communicate the thought. > >>> > >>> For one thing, my translation is too labored and literal; a a Chinese > >>> person doesn't analyze so literally and the imagery is largley > >>> "automatized" rather than visualized. > >>> For another, the four character line has a history that goes all the > way > >>> back to the Book of Songs (11th C BCE) and all the way up to the > >>> antithetical couplets peasants put on their doorways as Spring Festival > >> in > >>> the the countryside > >>> > >>> (But James is right: the idea of antithetical couplets is a kind of > >>> natural dialectic built into the Chinese language. > >>> Somedays, like today, I find it that it influences the way I write in > >>> English.) > >>> > >>> David Kellogg > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 6:21 AM, James Ma > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I often find it interesting to read David?s words, good and catalytic > >>>> to me. > >>>> > >>>> I?ve been working on the Peirce-Vygotsky project and Peirce?s idea of > >>>> final logical interpretant which I take to be a qualitative > >>>> transformation, perhaps equivalent to ?a dialectical leap?. To me, > >>>> this transformation is not only attributable to an accrued > >>>> quantitative change but also bears itself the heritage of all the > >>>> earlier qualitative changes. So, the resultant final logical > >>>> interpretant encapsulates both qualitative and quantitative changes. > >>>> > >>>> By the way, on the face of it, ?a dialectical leap? is a more > >>>> congenial and customary concept to most Chinese people (from Mainland) > >>>> due to historical reasons. > >>>> > >>>> In a stage drama, I agree with David that an actor?s privileged access > >>>> is a real problem for him. This privileged access will have to be > >>>> calibrated or attuned to a dialectical leap in such a way that the > >>>> actor needs to make a choice from the plenitude of signs that are > >>>> constantly on the move both consciously and subliminally. However, in > >>>> the case of Peking opera, a dialectical leap is far more complex since > >>>> there is more to it. The actor is involved in an organic combination > >>>> of vocal performance, acrobatics and dance etc. Perhaps, dialectical > >>>> leap is not quite a right word to reflect what is perceived as the > >>>> essence of Peking opera: ???? consummate, and ???? > >>>> superb. > >>>> > >>>> James > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> *James Ma* *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > >>>> * > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 28 October 2017 at 00:26, David Kellogg > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I've always been restless with the idea that language is a > >>>> self-organizing > >>>>> system, or that it has a "fractal" structure in the sense of the > >>>>> "self-similarity" we find in a fern leaf--the same structure at > >>>>> every level. I suppose my impatience is ideological: I believe > >>>>> language organization is semantically driven (and semantic structure > >>>>> is a realization/transformation of some of the structures found in > >>> contexts). > >>>> So > >>>>> I don't think that vowels and consonants organize themselves into > >>>> syllables > >>>>> without human intentions, nor do I think that syllables will form > >>>>> words unless somebody makes them do it. As for grammar, it seems to > >>>>> me that to expect that even the very limited grammar found in this > >>>>> paragraph you are reading should somehow be "thrown up" by the words > >>>>> I am using and their elective affinities is a little like expecting > >>>>> medieval cathedrals to be thrown up by the mutual attraction of the > >>> stones that compose them. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, I know. Consonants are what happen in the absence of vowels (at > >>>>> the ends of vowel phrases). Vowels are what happen at the ends of > >>> consonants. > >>>>> As soon as you have breath, vocal cord vibration, and a beginning > >>>>> and an end to it, you have the primitive structure (Optional > >>>>> Consonant) > >>>> Mandatory > >>>>> Vowel (Optioinal Consonant), and from this we can derive all the > >>>>> possible syllable structures of any language. You can do the same > >>>>> trick at any > >>>> level > >>>>> of language: If you have a morpheme like "work" or "play" you can > >>>>> add a bound morpheme to either end ("re~" and/or "~ed"),and if you > >>>>> have a > >>>> clause > >>>>> like "Work!" you can add a bound clause to either end ("If you are > >>>>> so willing~" and/or "so as to enrich yourselves!") and the existence > >>>>> of xmca itself shows how this principle works on units above the > >>>>> clause--Mike's last post is not really intelligible without my > >>>>> preceding one, and mine > >>>> is > >>>>> not really intelligible without James's, etc. > >>>>> > >>>>> But I'm not talking about the various forms of language, potential > >>>>> and real; these are of course the affordances of the stuff of which > >>>>> language > >>>> is > >>>>> made, just as the limits of what you can do on a canvas has > >>>>> something to > >>>> do > >>>>> with the consistency of the paint. I'm talking about what people > >>>>> actually do and not just what they may or might do. So for example > >>>>> when we look at "To be or not to be" or at the speeches we find in > >>>>> "Shajiabang" or even, > >>>> as > >>>>> Mike suggests, at the language of everyday life, we find that vowels > >>>>> tend to carry the feeling of what we say (that's why they are > >>>>> elongated in tonics and why they are directed in tonality). > >>>>> Consonants, on the > >>>> other > >>>>> hand, work better for the nuances of thinking. That's why we sing > >>>>> the vowels, but spell with consonants; why Ophelia says "Oh what a > >>>>> noble mind is here o'erthrone!" but Hamlet says "Nymph, in thy > >>>>> orisons be all my > >>>> sins > >>>>> remembered!". And so once again we find that feeling and thinking > >>>>> are > >>>> both > >>>>> linked and distinct, to say the which is surely to say no more and > >>>>> no > >>>> less > >>>>> than to say that they are joined/separated by a dialectical leap. > >>>>> > >>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> ________________________________ > >>> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] >>> //www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > >>> > >>> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely > for > >>> the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the > >>> intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the > >>> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on > >> it. > >>> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know > >>> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not > >>> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University > accepts > >>> no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan > >> emails > >>> and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept > responsibility > >>> for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its > >>> attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless > accompanied > >>> by an official order form. > >>> > >>> > >> > From jamesma320@gmail.com Mon Oct 30 06:30:35 2017 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 13:30:35 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus In-Reply-To: References: <51C8AFD6-52B4-4C50-85BA-B7BDE4411628@llaisdy.com> Message-ID: In general there are no Chinese characters indicative of a vowel or a consonant. Speaking orthographically, Chinese is ideograph-based, whereas English phonograph-based. These are two different orthographical systems. What is distinctive about Chinese language is that each character is constructed as an idea or a concept and has its historical, literary and aesthetic origin. This is probably why learning Chinese presents a considerable challenge for speakers of phonograph-based languages. David was correct, there wasn?t a romanisation system until 1950s when Pinyin was created as a romanisation system for standard Chinese, Hanyu ??, hence Hanyu Pinyin ????. James On 29 October 2017 at 22:55, David Kellogg wrote: > Halliday would describe it as a difference in aperture. "Man" is open, > while "men" is half-open. You can feel and even see your jaw moving when > you move from one to the other. > > Aperture is best thought of dynamically, as a movement from one posture to > another rather than as a single static posture, as when we describe vowels. > So once again it is better thought of as prosody than as articulation. > > Take a look at this: > > https://functionallinguistics.springeropen.com/articles/10. > 1186/2196-419X-1-2 > > Halliday's model is not as idiosyncratic--or as language specific--as it > seems. A lot of linguists agree that phonemes are essentially reifications > of graphemes, and that syllables are a better model for understanding > spoken phonology. In fact, when we read Vygotsky, we see that he uses the > term "phoneme" in a rather strange way: he doesn't mean vowels and > consonants, because these actually DON'T have any meaning except in > comparison to other possible selections a speaker might have made but > didn't. In fact, the example he gives of "phonemes" in the Lectures on > Pedology are Russian case endings. Russian case endings are actually not > phonemes at all but morphemes. > > Vygotsky went to school with Jakobson and probably studied with Trubetskoy. > So for him a "phoneme" is really what we would call a morpho-phoneme. More > like a Chinese character than a vowel or a consonant! > > David Kellogg > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Ivan Uemlianin wrote: > > > Without referring to vowels, how would one describe the phonological > > difference in Mandarin between ? and ?? > > > > Ivan > > > > -- > > festina lente > > > > > > > On 29 Oct 2017, at 20:59, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > > > Chinese phonologists didn't use romanization until the 1950s (and even > > then > > > it was mostly . Even in old rhyming dictionaries, the main unit of > > analysis > > > is the morpho-syllable (i.e. the written character, but spoken). The > > > dictionaries are conscious of an onset and a rhyme, but not a vowel or > a > > > consonant. You can see that the "rhyme" (that is, the "tail" of the > > > syllable) is always either a vowel or a nasal, but not a stop. Vowels > and > > > consonants don't explain this (and they don't explain tones either), so > > > it's hardly surprising that Chinese phonologists were not interested in > > > them.. > > > > > > Now, suppose we consider Chinese as the OPPOSITE of English. English > puts > > > articulation (vowels and consonants) at the centre of its phonological > > > description and considers prosoday (intonation and stress) to be > > > peripheral, but Chinese is the other way around. We can easily descibe > > > every syllable in Chinese as a set of half a dozen prosodic features: > > > initial posture, final posture, voice onset, aperture (open or closed), > > and > > > of course tone. This is a much better description, and it doesn't use > > > vowels or consonants. > > > > > > I think that "chengyu" doesn't really capture the literary flavor very > > > well, and that was what I wanted to say when I compared them to > > > antithetical couplets. By introducing them in pairs, James is > introducing > > > two important semantic features of Chinese which are lost on > > > non-Sinophones, and which are essential to understanding the specific > > > dialectics of Chinese: the four-syllable line, which is of great > > antiquity, > > > and the tendency to produce couplets. I always thought that "chengyu" > are > > > more prosaic, more like proverbs. But Ivan, as usual, knows better! > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > >> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 7:00 PM, James Ma > wrote: > > >> > > >> In Chinese grammatical terms, the first one ???? is the > > "subject-predicate" > > >> type, for example, ???? masculinity and femininity are complementary > to > > >> each other; the second one ???? the "symmetric relation" type, for > > example, > > >> ???? (of vocal performance) clear articulation of the lyrics and > perfect > > >> execution of the tone. > > >> > > >> James > > >> > > >> On 29 October 2017 at 09:10, Rod Parker-Rees < > > R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk > > >>> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Thanks David, > > >>> > > >>> I am always fascinated by insights into how language is used in > > different > > >>> ways to nuance and shade meanings. > > >>> > > >>> Can you explain how these couplets are 'antithetical'? The second one > > >>> clearly juxtaposes merging and emerging but I was intrigued by how > the > > >>> furnace burning with a pure green hue is seen as an antithesis. > > >>> > > >>> All the best, > > >>> > > >>> Rod > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ > > >>> mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > > >>> Sent: 29 October 2017 00:28 > > >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus > > >>> > > >>> You notice that James gives us two antithetical couplets, each of > four > > >>> syllables (Chinese, like child protolanguage, doesn't differentiate > > >> vowels > > >>> and consonants). > > >>> > > >>> ???? > > >>> ???? > > >>> > > >>> L? hu? ch?n q?ng (the fire of the furnace burns a pure green hue) > Ch? > > >>> sh?n r? hu? (The god emerges and merges, comes out and goes in) > > >>> > > >>> I haven't actually rendered the feeling that a Chinese person feels > on > > >>> hearing these expressions, any more than the words "consummate" or > > >> "superb" > > >>> communicate the thought. > > >>> > > >>> For one thing, my translation is too labored and literal; a a Chinese > > >>> person doesn't analyze so literally and the imagery is largley > > >>> "automatized" rather than visualized. > > >>> For another, the four character line has a history that goes all the > > way > > >>> back to the Book of Songs (11th C BCE) and all the way up to the > > >>> antithetical couplets peasants put on their doorways as Spring > Festival > > >> in > > >>> the the countryside > > >>> > > >>> (But James is right: the idea of antithetical couplets is a kind of > > >>> natural dialectic built into the Chinese language. > > >>> Somedays, like today, I find it that it influences the way I write in > > >>> English.) > > >>> > > >>> David Kellogg > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 6:21 AM, James Ma > > wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> I often find it interesting to read David?s words, good and > catalytic > > >>>> to me. > > >>>> > > >>>> I?ve been working on the Peirce-Vygotsky project and Peirce?s idea > of > > >>>> final logical interpretant which I take to be a qualitative > > >>>> transformation, perhaps equivalent to ?a dialectical leap?. To me, > > >>>> this transformation is not only attributable to an accrued > > >>>> quantitative change but also bears itself the heritage of all the > > >>>> earlier qualitative changes. So, the resultant final logical > > >>>> interpretant encapsulates both qualitative and quantitative changes. > > >>>> > > >>>> By the way, on the face of it, ?a dialectical leap? is a more > > >>>> congenial and customary concept to most Chinese people (from > Mainland) > > >>>> due to historical reasons. > > >>>> > > >>>> In a stage drama, I agree with David that an actor?s privileged > access > > >>>> is a real problem for him. This privileged access will have to be > > >>>> calibrated or attuned to a dialectical leap in such a way that the > > >>>> actor needs to make a choice from the plenitude of signs that are > > >>>> constantly on the move both consciously and subliminally. However, > in > > >>>> the case of Peking opera, a dialectical leap is far more complex > since > > >>>> there is more to it. The actor is involved in an organic combination > > >>>> of vocal performance, acrobatics and dance etc. Perhaps, dialectical > > >>>> leap is not quite a right word to reflect what is perceived as the > > >>>> essence of Peking opera: ???? consummate, and ???? > > >>>> superb. > > >>>> > > >>>> James > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> *James Ma* *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa > > >>>> * > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On 28 October 2017 at 00:26, David Kellogg > > >> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> I've always been restless with the idea that language is a > > >>>> self-organizing > > >>>>> system, or that it has a "fractal" structure in the sense of the > > >>>>> "self-similarity" we find in a fern leaf--the same structure at > > >>>>> every level. I suppose my impatience is ideological: I believe > > >>>>> language organization is semantically driven (and semantic > structure > > >>>>> is a realization/transformation of some of the structures found in > > >>> contexts). > > >>>> So > > >>>>> I don't think that vowels and consonants organize themselves into > > >>>> syllables > > >>>>> without human intentions, nor do I think that syllables will form > > >>>>> words unless somebody makes them do it. As for grammar, it seems to > > >>>>> me that to expect that even the very limited grammar found in this > > >>>>> paragraph you are reading should somehow be "thrown up" by the > words > > >>>>> I am using and their elective affinities is a little like expecting > > >>>>> medieval cathedrals to be thrown up by the mutual attraction of the > > >>> stones that compose them. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Yes, I know. Consonants are what happen in the absence of vowels > (at > > >>>>> the ends of vowel phrases). Vowels are what happen at the ends of > > >>> consonants. > > >>>>> As soon as you have breath, vocal cord vibration, and a beginning > > >>>>> and an end to it, you have the primitive structure (Optional > > >>>>> Consonant) > > >>>> Mandatory > > >>>>> Vowel (Optioinal Consonant), and from this we can derive all the > > >>>>> possible syllable structures of any language. You can do the same > > >>>>> trick at any > > >>>> level > > >>>>> of language: If you have a morpheme like "work" or "play" you can > > >>>>> add a bound morpheme to either end ("re~" and/or "~ed"),and if you > > >>>>> have a > > >>>> clause > > >>>>> like "Work!" you can add a bound clause to either end ("If you are > > >>>>> so willing~" and/or "so as to enrich yourselves!") and the > existence > > >>>>> of xmca itself shows how this principle works on units above the > > >>>>> clause--Mike's last post is not really intelligible without my > > >>>>> preceding one, and mine > > >>>> is > > >>>>> not really intelligible without James's, etc. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> But I'm not talking about the various forms of language, potential > > >>>>> and real; these are of course the affordances of the stuff of which > > >>>>> language > > >>>> is > > >>>>> made, just as the limits of what you can do on a canvas has > > >>>>> something to > > >>>> do > > >>>>> with the consistency of the paint. I'm talking about what people > > >>>>> actually do and not just what they may or might do. So for example > > >>>>> when we look at "To be or not to be" or at the speeches we find in > > >>>>> "Shajiabang" or even, > > >>>> as > > >>>>> Mike suggests, at the language of everyday life, we find that > vowels > > >>>>> tend to carry the feeling of what we say (that's why they are > > >>>>> elongated in tonics and why they are directed in tonality). > > >>>>> Consonants, on the > > >>>> other > > >>>>> hand, work better for the nuances of thinking. That's why we sing > > >>>>> the vowels, but spell with consonants; why Ophelia says "Oh what a > > >>>>> noble mind is here o'erthrone!" but Hamlet says "Nymph, in thy > > >>>>> orisons be all my > > >>>> sins > > >>>>> remembered!". And so once again we find that feeling and thinking > > >>>>> are > > >>>> both > > >>>>> linked and distinct, to say the which is surely to say no more and > > >>>>> no > > >>>> less > > >>>>> than to say that they are joined/separated by a dialectical leap. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> David Kellogg > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> ________________________________ > > >>> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] > >>> //www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > >>> > > >>> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely > > for > > >>> the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the > > >>> intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the > > >>> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely > on > > >> it. > > >>> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know > > >>> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are > not > > >>> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University > > accepts > > >>> no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan > > >> emails > > >>> and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept > > responsibility > > >>> for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its > > >>> attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless > > accompanied > > >>> by an official order form. > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > From ivan@llaisdy.com Mon Oct 30 06:41:16 2017 From: ivan@llaisdy.com (Ivan Uemlianin) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 13:41:16 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus In-Reply-To: References: <51C8AFD6-52B4-4C50-85BA-B7BDE4411628@llaisdy.com> Message-ID: <6f8708a1-3acd-a4a3-7688-4f803b823b86@llaisdy.com> Interesting article, thanks.? I am not very familiar with SFL. "aperture" vs "vowel" seems like just terminological variation.? We could use manner of articulation (it is articulation rather than prosody as tone is separate - both ? and ? have falling tone).? For understanding phonology it is essential to have terms for units smaller than the syllable, including a term for the syllable kernel ("vowel", "open aperture", feature cluster, whatever). Ivan On 29/10/2017 22:55, David Kellogg wrote: > Halliday would describe it as a difference in aperture. "Man" is open, > while "men" is half-open. You can feel and even see your jaw moving when > you move from one to the other. > > Aperture is best thought of dynamically, as a movement from one posture to > another rather than as a single static posture, as when we describe vowels. > So once again it is better thought of as prosody than as articulation. > > Take a look at this: > > https://functionallinguistics.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2196-419X-1-2 > > Halliday's model is not as idiosyncratic--or as language specific--as it > seems. A lot of linguists agree that phonemes are essentially reifications > of graphemes, and that syllables are a better model for understanding > spoken phonology. In fact, when we read Vygotsky, we see that he uses the > term "phoneme" in a rather strange way: he doesn't mean vowels and > consonants, because these actually DON'T have any meaning except in > comparison to other possible selections a speaker might have made but > didn't. In fact, the example he gives of "phonemes" in the Lectures on > Pedology are Russian case endings. Russian case endings are actually not > phonemes at all but morphemes. > > Vygotsky went to school with Jakobson and probably studied with Trubetskoy. > So for him a "phoneme" is really what we would call a morpho-phoneme. More > like a Chinese character than a vowel or a consonant! > > David Kellogg > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Ivan Uemlianin wrote: > >> Without referring to vowels, how would one describe the phonological >> difference in Mandarin between ? and ?? >> >> Ivan >> >> -- >> festina lente >> >> >>> On 29 Oct 2017, at 20:59, David Kellogg wrote: >>> >>> Chinese phonologists didn't use romanization until the 1950s (and even >> then >>> it was mostly . Even in old rhyming dictionaries, the main unit of >> analysis >>> is the morpho-syllable (i.e. the written character, but spoken). The >>> dictionaries are conscious of an onset and a rhyme, but not a vowel or a >>> consonant. You can see that the "rhyme" (that is, the "tail" of the >>> syllable) is always either a vowel or a nasal, but not a stop. Vowels and >>> consonants don't explain this (and they don't explain tones either), so >>> it's hardly surprising that Chinese phonologists were not interested in >>> them.. >>> >>> Now, suppose we consider Chinese as the OPPOSITE of English. English puts >>> articulation (vowels and consonants) at the centre of its phonological >>> description and considers prosoday (intonation and stress) to be >>> peripheral, but Chinese is the other way around. We can easily descibe >>> every syllable in Chinese as a set of half a dozen prosodic features: >>> initial posture, final posture, voice onset, aperture (open or closed), >> and >>> of course tone. This is a much better description, and it doesn't use >>> vowels or consonants. >>> >>> I think that "chengyu" doesn't really capture the literary flavor very >>> well, and that was what I wanted to say when I compared them to >>> antithetical couplets. By introducing them in pairs, James is introducing >>> two important semantic features of Chinese which are lost on >>> non-Sinophones, and which are essential to understanding the specific >>> dialectics of Chinese: the four-syllable line, which is of great >> antiquity, >>> and the tendency to produce couplets. I always thought that "chengyu" are >>> more prosaic, more like proverbs. But Ivan, as usual, knows better! >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> >>>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 7:00 PM, James Ma wrote: >>>> >>>> In Chinese grammatical terms, the first one ???? is the >> "subject-predicate" >>>> type, for example, ???? masculinity and femininity are complementary to >>>> each other; the second one ???? the "symmetric relation" type, for >> example, >>>> ???? (of vocal performance) clear articulation of the lyrics and perfect >>>> execution of the tone. >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> On 29 October 2017 at 09:10, Rod Parker-Rees < >> R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks David, >>>>> >>>>> I am always fascinated by insights into how language is used in >> different >>>>> ways to nuance and shade meanings. >>>>> >>>>> Can you explain how these couplets are 'antithetical'? The second one >>>>> clearly juxtaposes merging and emerging but I was intrigued by how the >>>>> furnace burning with a pure green hue is seen as an antithesis. >>>>> >>>>> All the best, >>>>> >>>>> Rod >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ >>>>> mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg >>>>> Sent: 29 October 2017 00:28 >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus >>>>> >>>>> You notice that James gives us two antithetical couplets, each of four >>>>> syllables (Chinese, like child protolanguage, doesn't differentiate >>>> vowels >>>>> and consonants). >>>>> >>>>> ???? >>>>> ???? >>>>> >>>>> L? hu? ch?n q?ng (the fire of the furnace burns a pure green hue) Ch? >>>>> sh?n r? hu? (The god emerges and merges, comes out and goes in) >>>>> >>>>> I haven't actually rendered the feeling that a Chinese person feels on >>>>> hearing these expressions, any more than the words "consummate" or >>>> "superb" >>>>> communicate the thought. >>>>> >>>>> For one thing, my translation is too labored and literal; a a Chinese >>>>> person doesn't analyze so literally and the imagery is largley >>>>> "automatized" rather than visualized. >>>>> For another, the four character line has a history that goes all the >> way >>>>> back to the Book of Songs (11th C BCE) and all the way up to the >>>>> antithetical couplets peasants put on their doorways as Spring Festival >>>> in >>>>> the the countryside >>>>> >>>>> (But James is right: the idea of antithetical couplets is a kind of >>>>> natural dialectic built into the Chinese language. >>>>> Somedays, like today, I find it that it influences the way I write in >>>>> English.) >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 6:21 AM, James Ma >> wrote: >>>>>> I often find it interesting to read David?s words, good and catalytic >>>>>> to me. >>>>>> >>>>>> I?ve been working on the Peirce-Vygotsky project and Peirce?s idea of >>>>>> final logical interpretant which I take to be a qualitative >>>>>> transformation, perhaps equivalent to ?a dialectical leap?. To me, >>>>>> this transformation is not only attributable to an accrued >>>>>> quantitative change but also bears itself the heritage of all the >>>>>> earlier qualitative changes. So, the resultant final logical >>>>>> interpretant encapsulates both qualitative and quantitative changes. >>>>>> >>>>>> By the way, on the face of it, ?a dialectical leap? is a more >>>>>> congenial and customary concept to most Chinese people (from Mainland) >>>>>> due to historical reasons. >>>>>> >>>>>> In a stage drama, I agree with David that an actor?s privileged access >>>>>> is a real problem for him. This privileged access will have to be >>>>>> calibrated or attuned to a dialectical leap in such a way that the >>>>>> actor needs to make a choice from the plenitude of signs that are >>>>>> constantly on the move both consciously and subliminally. However, in >>>>>> the case of Peking opera, a dialectical leap is far more complex since >>>>>> there is more to it. The actor is involved in an organic combination >>>>>> of vocal performance, acrobatics and dance etc. Perhaps, dialectical >>>>>> leap is not quite a right word to reflect what is perceived as the >>>>>> essence of Peking opera: ???? consummate, and ???? >>>>>> superb. >>>>>> >>>>>> James >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *James Ma* *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>> * >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 28 October 2017 at 00:26, David Kellogg >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> I've always been restless with the idea that language is a >>>>>> self-organizing >>>>>>> system, or that it has a "fractal" structure in the sense of the >>>>>>> "self-similarity" we find in a fern leaf--the same structure at >>>>>>> every level. I suppose my impatience is ideological: I believe >>>>>>> language organization is semantically driven (and semantic structure >>>>>>> is a realization/transformation of some of the structures found in >>>>> contexts). >>>>>> So >>>>>>> I don't think that vowels and consonants organize themselves into >>>>>> syllables >>>>>>> without human intentions, nor do I think that syllables will form >>>>>>> words unless somebody makes them do it. As for grammar, it seems to >>>>>>> me that to expect that even the very limited grammar found in this >>>>>>> paragraph you are reading should somehow be "thrown up" by the words >>>>>>> I am using and their elective affinities is a little like expecting >>>>>>> medieval cathedrals to be thrown up by the mutual attraction of the >>>>> stones that compose them. >>>>>>> Yes, I know. Consonants are what happen in the absence of vowels (at >>>>>>> the ends of vowel phrases). Vowels are what happen at the ends of >>>>> consonants. >>>>>>> As soon as you have breath, vocal cord vibration, and a beginning >>>>>>> and an end to it, you have the primitive structure (Optional >>>>>>> Consonant) >>>>>> Mandatory >>>>>>> Vowel (Optioinal Consonant), and from this we can derive all the >>>>>>> possible syllable structures of any language. You can do the same >>>>>>> trick at any >>>>>> level >>>>>>> of language: If you have a morpheme like "work" or "play" you can >>>>>>> add a bound morpheme to either end ("re~" and/or "~ed"),and if you >>>>>>> have a >>>>>> clause >>>>>>> like "Work!" you can add a bound clause to either end ("If you are >>>>>>> so willing~" and/or "so as to enrich yourselves!") and the existence >>>>>>> of xmca itself shows how this principle works on units above the >>>>>>> clause--Mike's last post is not really intelligible without my >>>>>>> preceding one, and mine >>>>>> is >>>>>>> not really intelligible without James's, etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But I'm not talking about the various forms of language, potential >>>>>>> and real; these are of course the affordances of the stuff of which >>>>>>> language >>>>>> is >>>>>>> made, just as the limits of what you can do on a canvas has >>>>>>> something to >>>>>> do >>>>>>> with the consistency of the paint. I'm talking about what people >>>>>>> actually do and not just what they may or might do. So for example >>>>>>> when we look at "To be or not to be" or at the speeches we find in >>>>>>> "Shajiabang" or even, >>>>>> as >>>>>>> Mike suggests, at the language of everyday life, we find that vowels >>>>>>> tend to carry the feeling of what we say (that's why they are >>>>>>> elongated in tonics and why they are directed in tonality). >>>>>>> Consonants, on the >>>>>> other >>>>>>> hand, work better for the nuances of thinking. That's why we sing >>>>>>> the vowels, but spell with consonants; why Ophelia says "Oh what a >>>>>>> noble mind is here o'erthrone!" but Hamlet says "Nymph, in thy >>>>>>> orisons be all my >>>>>> sins >>>>>>> remembered!". And so once again we find that feeling and thinking >>>>>>> are >>>>>> both >>>>>>> linked and distinct, to say the which is surely to say no more and >>>>>>> no >>>>>> less >>>>>>> than to say that they are joined/separated by a dialectical leap. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]>>>> //www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> >>>>> >>>>> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely >> for >>>>> the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the >>>>> intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the >>>>> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on >>>> it. >>>>> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know >>>>> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not >>>>> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University >> accepts >>>>> no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan >>>> emails >>>>> and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept >> responsibility >>>>> for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its >>>>> attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless >> accompanied >>>>> by an official order form. >>>>> >>>>> -- ============================================================ Ivan A. Uemlianin PhD Llaisdy Ymchwil a Datblygu Technoleg Lleferydd Speech Technology Research and Development ivan@llaisdy.com @llaisdy llaisdy.wordpress.com github.com/llaisdy www.linkedin.com/in/ivanuemlianin festina lente ============================================================ From ivan@llaisdy.com Mon Oct 30 06:44:31 2017 From: ivan@llaisdy.com (Ivan Uemlianin) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 13:44:31 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus In-Reply-To: References: <51C8AFD6-52B4-4C50-85BA-B7BDE4411628@llaisdy.com> Message-ID: Missionaries have been romanising Chinese since the 16th century. The first modern indigenous Chinese romanization system was developed in 1892 #wikipedia.? In any case my point is about phonology not orthography. Ivan On 30/10/2017 13:30, James Ma wrote: > In general there are no Chinese characters indicative of a vowel or a > consonant. Speaking orthographically, Chinese is ideograph-based, whereas > English phonograph-based. These are two different orthographical systems. > What is distinctive about Chinese language is that each character is > constructed as an idea or a concept and has its historical, literary and > aesthetic origin. This is probably why learning Chinese presents a > considerable challenge for speakers of phonograph-based languages. David > was correct, there wasn?t a romanisation system until 1950s when Pinyin was > created as a romanisation system for standard Chinese, Hanyu ??, hence > Hanyu Pinyin ????. > > > James > > > On 29 October 2017 at 22:55, David Kellogg wrote: > >> Halliday would describe it as a difference in aperture. "Man" is open, >> while "men" is half-open. You can feel and even see your jaw moving when >> you move from one to the other. >> >> Aperture is best thought of dynamically, as a movement from one posture to >> another rather than as a single static posture, as when we describe vowels. >> So once again it is better thought of as prosody than as articulation. >> >> Take a look at this: >> >> https://functionallinguistics.springeropen.com/articles/10. >> 1186/2196-419X-1-2 >> >> Halliday's model is not as idiosyncratic--or as language specific--as it >> seems. A lot of linguists agree that phonemes are essentially reifications >> of graphemes, and that syllables are a better model for understanding >> spoken phonology. In fact, when we read Vygotsky, we see that he uses the >> term "phoneme" in a rather strange way: he doesn't mean vowels and >> consonants, because these actually DON'T have any meaning except in >> comparison to other possible selections a speaker might have made but >> didn't. In fact, the example he gives of "phonemes" in the Lectures on >> Pedology are Russian case endings. Russian case endings are actually not >> phonemes at all but morphemes. >> >> Vygotsky went to school with Jakobson and probably studied with Trubetskoy. >> So for him a "phoneme" is really what we would call a morpho-phoneme. More >> like a Chinese character than a vowel or a consonant! >> >> David Kellogg >> >> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Ivan Uemlianin wrote: >> >>> Without referring to vowels, how would one describe the phonological >>> difference in Mandarin between ? and ?? >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>> -- >>> festina lente >>> >>> >>>> On 29 Oct 2017, at 20:59, David Kellogg wrote: >>>> >>>> Chinese phonologists didn't use romanization until the 1950s (and even >>> then >>>> it was mostly . Even in old rhyming dictionaries, the main unit of >>> analysis >>>> is the morpho-syllable (i.e. the written character, but spoken). The >>>> dictionaries are conscious of an onset and a rhyme, but not a vowel or >> a >>>> consonant. You can see that the "rhyme" (that is, the "tail" of the >>>> syllable) is always either a vowel or a nasal, but not a stop. Vowels >> and >>>> consonants don't explain this (and they don't explain tones either), so >>>> it's hardly surprising that Chinese phonologists were not interested in >>>> them.. >>>> >>>> Now, suppose we consider Chinese as the OPPOSITE of English. English >> puts >>>> articulation (vowels and consonants) at the centre of its phonological >>>> description and considers prosoday (intonation and stress) to be >>>> peripheral, but Chinese is the other way around. We can easily descibe >>>> every syllable in Chinese as a set of half a dozen prosodic features: >>>> initial posture, final posture, voice onset, aperture (open or closed), >>> and >>>> of course tone. This is a much better description, and it doesn't use >>>> vowels or consonants. >>>> >>>> I think that "chengyu" doesn't really capture the literary flavor very >>>> well, and that was what I wanted to say when I compared them to >>>> antithetical couplets. By introducing them in pairs, James is >> introducing >>>> two important semantic features of Chinese which are lost on >>>> non-Sinophones, and which are essential to understanding the specific >>>> dialectics of Chinese: the four-syllable line, which is of great >>> antiquity, >>>> and the tendency to produce couplets. I always thought that "chengyu" >> are >>>> more prosaic, more like proverbs. But Ivan, as usual, knows better! >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> >>>>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 7:00 PM, James Ma >> wrote: >>>>> In Chinese grammatical terms, the first one ???? is the >>> "subject-predicate" >>>>> type, for example, ???? masculinity and femininity are complementary >> to >>>>> each other; the second one ???? the "symmetric relation" type, for >>> example, >>>>> ???? (of vocal performance) clear articulation of the lyrics and >> perfect >>>>> execution of the tone. >>>>> >>>>> James >>>>> >>>>> On 29 October 2017 at 09:10, Rod Parker-Rees < >>> R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks David, >>>>>> >>>>>> I am always fascinated by insights into how language is used in >>> different >>>>>> ways to nuance and shade meanings. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you explain how these couplets are 'antithetical'? The second one >>>>>> clearly juxtaposes merging and emerging but I was intrigued by how >> the >>>>>> furnace burning with a pure green hue is seen as an antithesis. >>>>>> >>>>>> All the best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rod >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ >>>>>> mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg >>>>>> Sent: 29 October 2017 00:28 >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus >>>>>> >>>>>> You notice that James gives us two antithetical couplets, each of >> four >>>>>> syllables (Chinese, like child protolanguage, doesn't differentiate >>>>> vowels >>>>>> and consonants). >>>>>> >>>>>> ???? >>>>>> ???? >>>>>> >>>>>> L? hu? ch?n q?ng (the fire of the furnace burns a pure green hue) >> Ch? >>>>>> sh?n r? hu? (The god emerges and merges, comes out and goes in) >>>>>> >>>>>> I haven't actually rendered the feeling that a Chinese person feels >> on >>>>>> hearing these expressions, any more than the words "consummate" or >>>>> "superb" >>>>>> communicate the thought. >>>>>> >>>>>> For one thing, my translation is too labored and literal; a a Chinese >>>>>> person doesn't analyze so literally and the imagery is largley >>>>>> "automatized" rather than visualized. >>>>>> For another, the four character line has a history that goes all the >>> way >>>>>> back to the Book of Songs (11th C BCE) and all the way up to the >>>>>> antithetical couplets peasants put on their doorways as Spring >> Festival >>>>> in >>>>>> the the countryside >>>>>> >>>>>> (But James is right: the idea of antithetical couplets is a kind of >>>>>> natural dialectic built into the Chinese language. >>>>>> Somedays, like today, I find it that it influences the way I write in >>>>>> English.) >>>>>> >>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 6:21 AM, James Ma >>> wrote: >>>>>>> I often find it interesting to read David?s words, good and >> catalytic >>>>>>> to me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I?ve been working on the Peirce-Vygotsky project and Peirce?s idea >> of >>>>>>> final logical interpretant which I take to be a qualitative >>>>>>> transformation, perhaps equivalent to ?a dialectical leap?. To me, >>>>>>> this transformation is not only attributable to an accrued >>>>>>> quantitative change but also bears itself the heritage of all the >>>>>>> earlier qualitative changes. So, the resultant final logical >>>>>>> interpretant encapsulates both qualitative and quantitative changes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> By the way, on the face of it, ?a dialectical leap? is a more >>>>>>> congenial and customary concept to most Chinese people (from >> Mainland) >>>>>>> due to historical reasons. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In a stage drama, I agree with David that an actor?s privileged >> access >>>>>>> is a real problem for him. This privileged access will have to be >>>>>>> calibrated or attuned to a dialectical leap in such a way that the >>>>>>> actor needs to make a choice from the plenitude of signs that are >>>>>>> constantly on the move both consciously and subliminally. However, >> in >>>>>>> the case of Peking opera, a dialectical leap is far more complex >> since >>>>>>> there is more to it. The actor is involved in an organic combination >>>>>>> of vocal performance, acrobatics and dance etc. Perhaps, dialectical >>>>>>> leap is not quite a right word to reflect what is perceived as the >>>>>>> essence of Peking opera: ???? consummate, and ???? >>>>>>> superb. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> James >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *James Ma* *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 28 October 2017 at 00:26, David Kellogg >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> I've always been restless with the idea that language is a >>>>>>> self-organizing >>>>>>>> system, or that it has a "fractal" structure in the sense of the >>>>>>>> "self-similarity" we find in a fern leaf--the same structure at >>>>>>>> every level. I suppose my impatience is ideological: I believe >>>>>>>> language organization is semantically driven (and semantic >> structure >>>>>>>> is a realization/transformation of some of the structures found in >>>>>> contexts). >>>>>>> So >>>>>>>> I don't think that vowels and consonants organize themselves into >>>>>>> syllables >>>>>>>> without human intentions, nor do I think that syllables will form >>>>>>>> words unless somebody makes them do it. As for grammar, it seems to >>>>>>>> me that to expect that even the very limited grammar found in this >>>>>>>> paragraph you are reading should somehow be "thrown up" by the >> words >>>>>>>> I am using and their elective affinities is a little like expecting >>>>>>>> medieval cathedrals to be thrown up by the mutual attraction of the >>>>>> stones that compose them. >>>>>>>> Yes, I know. Consonants are what happen in the absence of vowels >> (at >>>>>>>> the ends of vowel phrases). Vowels are what happen at the ends of >>>>>> consonants. >>>>>>>> As soon as you have breath, vocal cord vibration, and a beginning >>>>>>>> and an end to it, you have the primitive structure (Optional >>>>>>>> Consonant) >>>>>>> Mandatory >>>>>>>> Vowel (Optioinal Consonant), and from this we can derive all the >>>>>>>> possible syllable structures of any language. You can do the same >>>>>>>> trick at any >>>>>>> level >>>>>>>> of language: If you have a morpheme like "work" or "play" you can >>>>>>>> add a bound morpheme to either end ("re~" and/or "~ed"),and if you >>>>>>>> have a >>>>>>> clause >>>>>>>> like "Work!" you can add a bound clause to either end ("If you are >>>>>>>> so willing~" and/or "so as to enrich yourselves!") and the >> existence >>>>>>>> of xmca itself shows how this principle works on units above the >>>>>>>> clause--Mike's last post is not really intelligible without my >>>>>>>> preceding one, and mine >>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> not really intelligible without James's, etc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But I'm not talking about the various forms of language, potential >>>>>>>> and real; these are of course the affordances of the stuff of which >>>>>>>> language >>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> made, just as the limits of what you can do on a canvas has >>>>>>>> something to >>>>>>> do >>>>>>>> with the consistency of the paint. I'm talking about what people >>>>>>>> actually do and not just what they may or might do. So for example >>>>>>>> when we look at "To be or not to be" or at the speeches we find in >>>>>>>> "Shajiabang" or even, >>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> Mike suggests, at the language of everyday life, we find that >> vowels >>>>>>>> tend to carry the feeling of what we say (that's why they are >>>>>>>> elongated in tonics and why they are directed in tonality). >>>>>>>> Consonants, on the >>>>>>> other >>>>>>>> hand, work better for the nuances of thinking. That's why we sing >>>>>>>> the vowels, but spell with consonants; why Ophelia says "Oh what a >>>>>>>> noble mind is here o'erthrone!" but Hamlet says "Nymph, in thy >>>>>>>> orisons be all my >>>>>>> sins >>>>>>>> remembered!". And so once again we find that feeling and thinking >>>>>>>> are >>>>>>> both >>>>>>>> linked and distinct, to say the which is surely to say no more and >>>>>>>> no >>>>>>> less >>>>>>>> than to say that they are joined/separated by a dialectical leap. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>> >>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]>>>>> //www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> >>>>>> >>>>>> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely >>> for >>>>>> the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the >>>>>> intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the >>>>>> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely >> on >>>>> it. >>>>>> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know >>>>>> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are >> not >>>>>> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University >>> accepts >>>>>> no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan >>>>> emails >>>>>> and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept >>> responsibility >>>>>> for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its >>>>>> attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless >>> accompanied >>>>>> by an official order form. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- ============================================================ Ivan A. Uemlianin PhD Llaisdy Ymchwil a Datblygu Technoleg Lleferydd Speech Technology Research and Development ivan@llaisdy.com @llaisdy llaisdy.wordpress.com github.com/llaisdy www.linkedin.com/in/ivanuemlianin festina lente ============================================================ From ivan@llaisdy.com Mon Oct 30 07:00:23 2017 From: ivan@llaisdy.com (Ivan Uemlianin) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:00:23 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus In-Reply-To: References: <51C8AFD6-52B4-4C50-85BA-B7BDE4411628@llaisdy.com> Message-ID: <63b6cdff-0946-ccb1-0141-2f000e9167a7@llaisdy.com> There's also Zhuyin (??) of course, an indigenous transliteration system for Mandarin (used mainly in Taiwan these days).? Doesn't use the Latin alphabet; does have symbols for consonants and vowels. Developed around 1912. Ivan On 30/10/2017 13:44, Ivan Uemlianin wrote: > Missionaries have been romanising Chinese since the 16th century. The > first modern indigenous Chinese romanization system was developed in > 1892 #wikipedia.? In any case my point is about phonology not > orthography. > > Ivan > > > On 30/10/2017 13:30, James Ma wrote: >> In general there are no Chinese characters indicative of a vowel or a >> consonant. Speaking orthographically, Chinese is ideograph-based, >> whereas >> English phonograph-based. These are two different orthographical >> systems. >> What is distinctive about Chinese language is that each character is >> constructed as an idea or a concept and has its historical, literary and >> aesthetic origin. This is probably why learning Chinese presents a >> considerable challenge for speakers of phonograph-based languages. David >> was correct, there wasn?t a romanisation system until 1950s when >> Pinyin was >> created as a romanisation system for standard Chinese, Hanyu ??, hence >> Hanyu Pinyin ????. >> >> >> James >> >> >> On 29 October 2017 at 22:55, David Kellogg wrote: >> >>> Halliday would describe it as a difference in aperture. "Man" is open, >>> while "men" is half-open. You can feel and even see your jaw moving >>> when >>> you move from one to the other. >>> >>> Aperture is best thought of dynamically, as a movement from one >>> posture to >>> another rather than as a single static posture, as when we describe >>> vowels. >>> So once again it is better thought of as prosody than as articulation. >>> >>> Take a look at this: >>> >>> https://functionallinguistics.springeropen.com/articles/10. >>> 1186/2196-419X-1-2 >>> >>> Halliday's model is not as idiosyncratic--or as language >>> specific--as it >>> seems. A lot of linguists agree that phonemes are essentially >>> reifications >>> of graphemes, and that syllables are a better model for understanding >>> spoken phonology. In fact, when we read Vygotsky, we see that he >>> uses the >>> term "phoneme" in a rather strange way: he doesn't mean vowels and >>> consonants, because these actually DON'T have any meaning except in >>> comparison to other possible selections a speaker might have made but >>> didn't. In fact, the example he gives of "phonemes" in the Lectures on >>> Pedology are Russian case endings. Russian case endings are actually >>> not >>> phonemes at all but morphemes. >>> >>> Vygotsky went to school with Jakobson and probably studied with >>> Trubetskoy. >>> So for him a "phoneme" is really what we would call a >>> morpho-phoneme. More >>> like a Chinese character than a vowel or a consonant! >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Ivan Uemlianin >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Without referring to vowels, how would one describe the phonological >>>> difference in Mandarin between ? and ?? >>>> >>>> Ivan >>>> >>>> -- >>>> festina lente >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 29 Oct 2017, at 20:59, David Kellogg wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Chinese phonologists didn't use romanization until the 1950s (and >>>>> even >>>> then >>>>> it was mostly . Even in old rhyming dictionaries, the main unit of >>>> analysis >>>>> is the morpho-syllable (i.e. the written character, but spoken). The >>>>> dictionaries are conscious of an onset and a rhyme, but not a >>>>> vowel or >>> a >>>>> consonant. You can see that the "rhyme" (that is, the "tail" of the >>>>> syllable) is always either a vowel or a nasal, but not a stop. Vowels >>> and >>>>> consonants don't explain this (and they don't explain tones >>>>> either), so >>>>> it's hardly surprising that Chinese phonologists were not >>>>> interested in >>>>> them.. >>>>> >>>>> Now, suppose we consider Chinese as the OPPOSITE of English. English >>> puts >>>>> articulation (vowels and consonants) at the centre of its >>>>> phonological >>>>> description and considers prosoday (intonation and stress) to be >>>>> peripheral, but Chinese is the other way around. We can easily >>>>> descibe >>>>> every syllable in Chinese as a set of half a dozen prosodic features: >>>>> initial posture, final posture, voice onset, aperture (open or >>>>> closed), >>>> and >>>>> of course tone. This is a much better description, and it doesn't use >>>>> vowels or consonants. >>>>> >>>>> I think that "chengyu" doesn't really capture the literary flavor >>>>> very >>>>> well, and that was what I wanted to say when I compared them to >>>>> antithetical couplets. By introducing them in pairs, James is >>> introducing >>>>> two important semantic features of Chinese which are lost on >>>>> non-Sinophones, and which are essential to understanding the specific >>>>> dialectics of Chinese: the four-syllable line, which is of great >>>> antiquity, >>>>> and the tendency to produce couplets. I always thought that "chengyu" >>> are >>>>> more prosaic, more like proverbs. But Ivan, as usual, knows better! >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 7:00 PM, James Ma >>> wrote: >>>>>> In Chinese grammatical terms, the first one ???? is the >>>> "subject-predicate" >>>>>> type, for example, ???? masculinity and femininity are >>>>>> complementary >>> to >>>>>> each other; the second one ???? the "symmetric relation" type, >>>>>> for >>>> example, >>>>>> ???? (of vocal performance) clear articulation of the lyrics and >>> perfect >>>>>> execution of the tone. >>>>>> >>>>>> James >>>>>> >>>>>> On 29 October 2017 at 09:10, Rod Parker-Rees < >>>> R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks David, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am always fascinated by insights into how language is used in >>>> different >>>>>>> ways to nuance and shade meanings. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you explain how these couplets are 'antithetical'? The >>>>>>> second one >>>>>>> clearly juxtaposes merging and emerging but I was intrigued by how >>> the >>>>>>> furnace burning with a pure green hue is seen as an antithesis. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All the best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rod >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ >>>>>>> mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg >>>>>>> Sent: 29 October 2017 00:28 >>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You notice that James gives us two antithetical couplets, each of >>> four >>>>>>> syllables (Chinese, like child protolanguage, doesn't differentiate >>>>>> vowels >>>>>>> and consonants). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ???? >>>>>>> ???? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> L? hu? ch?n q?ng? (the fire of the furnace burns a pure green hue) >>> Ch? >>>>>>> sh?n r? hu? (The god emerges and merges, comes out and goes in) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I haven't actually rendered the feeling that a Chinese person feels >>> on >>>>>>> hearing these expressions, any more than the words "consummate" or >>>>>> "superb" >>>>>>> communicate the thought. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For one thing, my translation is too labored and literal; a a >>>>>>> Chinese >>>>>>> person doesn't analyze so literally and the imagery is largley >>>>>>> "automatized" rather than visualized. >>>>>>> For another, the four character line has a history that goes all >>>>>>> the >>>> way >>>>>>> back to the Book of Songs (11th C BCE) and all the way up to the >>>>>>> antithetical couplets peasants put on their doorways as Spring >>> Festival >>>>>> in >>>>>>> the the countryside >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (But James is right: the idea of antithetical couplets is a kind of >>>>>>> natural dialectic built into the Chinese language. >>>>>>> Somedays, like today, I find it that it influences the way I >>>>>>> write in >>>>>>> English.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 6:21 AM, James Ma >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> I often find it interesting to read David?s words, good and >>> catalytic >>>>>>>> to me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I?ve been working on the Peirce-Vygotsky project and Peirce?s idea >>> of >>>>>>>> final logical interpretant which I take to be a qualitative >>>>>>>> transformation, perhaps equivalent to ?a dialectical leap?. To me, >>>>>>>> this transformation is not only attributable to an accrued >>>>>>>> quantitative change but also bears itself the heritage of all the >>>>>>>> earlier qualitative changes. So, the resultant final logical >>>>>>>> interpretant encapsulates both qualitative and quantitative >>>>>>>> changes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> By the way, on the face of it, ?a dialectical leap? is a more >>>>>>>> congenial and customary concept to most Chinese people (from >>> Mainland) >>>>>>>> due to historical reasons. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In a stage drama, I agree with David that an actor?s privileged >>> access >>>>>>>> is a real problem for him. This privileged access will have to be >>>>>>>> calibrated or attuned to a dialectical leap in such a way that the >>>>>>>> actor needs to make a choice from the plenitude of signs that are >>>>>>>> constantly on the move both consciously and subliminally. However, >>> in >>>>>>>> the case of Peking opera, a dialectical leap is far more complex >>> since >>>>>>>> there is more to it. The actor is involved in an organic >>>>>>>> combination >>>>>>>> of vocal performance, acrobatics and dance etc. Perhaps, >>>>>>>> dialectical >>>>>>>> leap is not quite a right word to reflect what is perceived as the >>>>>>>> essence of Peking opera: ???? consummate, and ???? >>>>>>>> superb. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *James Ma*? *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>> ?? * >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 28 October 2017 at 00:26, David Kellogg >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> I've always been restless with the idea that language is a >>>>>>>> self-organizing >>>>>>>>> system, or that it has a "fractal" structure in the sense of the >>>>>>>>> "self-similarity" we find in a fern leaf--the same structure at >>>>>>>>> every level. I suppose my impatience is ideological: I believe >>>>>>>>> language organization is semantically driven (and semantic >>> structure >>>>>>>>> is a realization/transformation of some of the structures >>>>>>>>> found in >>>>>>> contexts). >>>>>>>> So >>>>>>>>> I don't think that vowels and consonants organize themselves into >>>>>>>> syllables >>>>>>>>> without human intentions, nor do I think that syllables will form >>>>>>>>> words unless somebody makes them do it. As for grammar, it >>>>>>>>> seems to >>>>>>>>> me that to expect that even the very limited grammar found in >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> paragraph you are reading should somehow be "thrown up" by the >>> words >>>>>>>>> I am using and their elective affinities is a little like >>>>>>>>> expecting >>>>>>>>> medieval cathedrals to be thrown up by the mutual attraction >>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>> stones that compose them. >>>>>>>>> Yes, I know. Consonants are what happen in the absence of vowels >>> (at >>>>>>>>> the ends of vowel phrases). Vowels are what happen at the ends of >>>>>>> consonants. >>>>>>>>> As soon as you have breath, vocal cord vibration, and a beginning >>>>>>>>> and an end to it, you have the primitive structure (Optional >>>>>>>>> Consonant) >>>>>>>> Mandatory >>>>>>>>> Vowel (Optioinal Consonant), and from this we can derive all the >>>>>>>>> possible syllable structures of any language. You can do the same >>>>>>>>> trick at any >>>>>>>> level >>>>>>>>> of language: If you have a morpheme like "work" or "play" you can >>>>>>>>> add a bound morpheme to either end ("re~" and/or "~ed"),and if >>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>> have a >>>>>>>> clause >>>>>>>>> like "Work!" you can add a bound clause to either end ("If you >>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>> so willing~" and/or "so as to enrich yourselves!") and the >>> existence >>>>>>>>> of xmca itself shows how this principle works on units above the >>>>>>>>> clause--Mike's last post is not really intelligible without my >>>>>>>>> preceding one, and mine >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> not really intelligible without James's, etc. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But I'm not talking about the various forms of language, >>>>>>>>> potential >>>>>>>>> and real; these are of course the affordances of the stuff of >>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> made, just as the limits of what you can do on a canvas has >>>>>>>>> something to >>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>> with the consistency of the paint. I'm talking about what people >>>>>>>>> actually do and not just what they may or might do. So for >>>>>>>>> example >>>>>>>>> when we look at "To be or not to be" or at the speeches we >>>>>>>>> find in >>>>>>>>> "Shajiabang" or even, >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>> Mike suggests, at the language of everyday life, we find that >>> vowels >>>>>>>>> tend to carry the feeling of what we say (that's why they are >>>>>>>>> elongated in tonics and why they are directed in tonality). >>>>>>>>> Consonants, on the >>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>> hand, work better for the nuances of thinking. That's why we sing >>>>>>>>> the vowels, but spell with consonants; why Ophelia says "Oh >>>>>>>>> what a >>>>>>>>> noble mind is here o'erthrone!" but Hamlet says "Nymph, in thy >>>>>>>>> orisons be all my >>>>>>>> sins >>>>>>>>> remembered!". And so once again we find that feeling and thinking >>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> both >>>>>>>>> linked and distinct, to say the which is surely to say no more >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> no >>>>>>>> less >>>>>>>>> than to say that they are joined/separated by a dialectical leap. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]>>>>>> //www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended >>>>>>> solely >>>> for >>>>>>> the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the >>>>>>> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not >>>>>>> rely >>> on >>>>>> it. >>>>>>> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know >>>>>>> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are >>> not >>>>>>> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University >>>> accepts >>>>>>> no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan >>>>>> emails >>>>>>> and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept >>>> responsibility >>>>>>> for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or >>>>>>> its >>>>>>> attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless >>>> accompanied >>>>>>> by an official order form. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > -- ============================================================ Ivan A. Uemlianin PhD Llaisdy Ymchwil a Datblygu Technoleg Lleferydd Speech Technology Research and Development ivan@llaisdy.com @llaisdy llaisdy.wordpress.com github.com/llaisdy www.linkedin.com/in/ivanuemlianin festina lente ============================================================ From dkellogg60@gmail.com Mon Oct 30 14:35:09 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 06:35:09 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] =?utf-8?b?RndkOiAgUmU6INCe0YLQsjogUmU6INCe0YLQsjogUmU6INCe0YI=?= =?utf-8?q?=D0=B2=3A_Re=3A_Object_oriented_activity_and_communicati?= =?utf-8?q?on?= In-Reply-To: References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> <630D49CF-00CD-463E-A9B1-1E2924FCE197@uniandes.edu.co> <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> <6B0A96B7-3ACE-43E8-8CFC-3AD05568269A@uniandes.edu.co> <919379338.1678471.1508585766999@mail.yahoo.com> <1508933013877.70037@iped.uio.no> <1311730113.6439834.1508973202950@mail.yahoo.com> <6e7d87e2-b3e7-5b41-1175-04c13dd1d78c@mira.net> <5EA1DF7F-AB22-4F5A-B150-6B9EB9FBA4E9@manchester.ac.uk> Message-ID: I think that when your grandson feels fear, what the child feels is his own fear and not your fear. As you point out, what is communicated is a vague uneasiness and not urgent and immediately actionable thought "I'm afraid that my grandson is going to electrocute himself" or even "Grandpa is afraid that I am going to electrocute myself". I think that when Alan Bennet's mother sees the cow, what she feels is the sensation of seeing shapes and colors and remembering seeing such patterns in some concrete context and not the precise location of a specifiable semantic address. So it seems to me that Wittgenstein is confirmed and not confounded. Vygosky says that when a wild goose is startled and the whole flock takes wing, we should call it "contamination' rather than "communication". What is "communicable" here is symptom not cause. The first goose is afraid of something and not because the other geese are afraid. The other geese are not afraid of whatever it was that startled the first goose; they are afraid because the first goose is afraid, and that is all. If you have a cold and sneeze, and I am sneezing because of the pepper on my pickle sandwich, then I cannot say that I have caught your cold. There is a well-known joke which makes the same point: if you scream in a theatre, everybody tells you to shut up, but if you scream on an airplane they all join in. In neither case, however, is there a feeling communicated: in both cases, the only thing being communicated was the fact of screaming, not the emotion that gave rise to it. It makes a difference to an undamaged human brain. Here's Dr. Adolfo Garcia demonstrating that there are good neurological reasons why you can say "My grandson ate breakfast" and even "My grandson felt/thought that it was time for breakfast'" but you cannot say "My grandson ate that it was time for breakfast". Mental processes are one thing, and material processes are another: a human brain knows the difference, and our languages reflect this knowledge. https://vimeo.com/111374335 Dr. Garcia has a good paper on this in Functions of Language: https://benjamins.com/#catalog/journals/fol.23.3.02gar/details If Alan Bennet's mum confirms Wittgenstein, but Alan Bennett thinks Wittgenstein is confounded, can we really say that he has understood Wittgenstein? if you prove my point, but you think you are actually contradicting it, have we communicated or not? David Kellogg On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Julian Williams < julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > David > > When I see my grandchild fall and bang their head I ?feel their pain? and > wince even before I hear him cry? even more so, my grandson seems to feel > my fear before I actually say anything about it (when they poke their > finger into the socket), and even though he is too young to have any words > for ?fear?? when you see someone?s face twist in such and such a way, you > mirror it and feel the sensation associated with the expression straight > away, don?t you? > > At some level of perception, we do communicate without words. As Alan > Bennet said in his diaries (when his demented mother pointed to a cow in > the field and said ?I know what they are but not what they are called?) > ?Thus Wittgenstein was confounded by my mother?. > > Am I missing your point? > > Julian > > On 26/10/2017, 11:58, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David > Kellogg" dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote: > > All Vygotsky says is that thinking is represented in the brain > differently > than immediate sensation. Vygotsky didn't have access to MRI scans or > computerized tomography. In fact these can and do distinguish between > verbs > of sensation and verbs of verbal report. But what Vygotsky did have > access > to is the grammar of reported speech. > > In all languages that I know, it is possible to quote the words of > another > person. I can say, for example: > > Sasha says "Obviously, this has nothing to do with Marxism". > > I can also quote the thoughts of another person. > > Sasha thinks, "Obviously, this has nothing to with Marxism." > > I can do this even when there are no actual words, just as I can read > Sasha's thoughts without him speaking them. > > However, in no languages that Iknow is it possible to quote the > actions or > the immediate sensations of another person. I cannot say, for example: > > "Sasha stood "Up"" > > "Sasha felt 'Cold'". > > When I try to say this, what I end up saying is that Sasha thought a > word > meaning, not that he felt an immediate sensation. > > In Chinese we say, "The speaker has gone, and the tea is cold." This > is > originally a line from the revolutionary opera "Shajiabang", about a > woman > who runs a teahouse used by communists. In this scene, the children are > acting out a visit by a Chinese quisling and a Japanese officer; they > accuse the woman of communist sympathies, and she says that all people > who > come to her teahouse have sympathies, but as soon as they go, their > tea is > cold, and she throws it out (6:13). > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUYvyRMvCNU > > There is no way, as Wittgenstein says, to feel the toothache of another > person; all you can do is to describe it in thoughts and words. > Paradoxically, when we want to share thoughts, we can do it > "immediately", > because thoughts and words have already made the dialectical leap--the > leap > from idiolect into a sharable dialect. > > David Kellogg > > > > > > other verbs). First of all, notice that he is saying that > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Andy Blunden > wrote: > > > That is a tendency within our heritage, David. Some people > > take the category of "labour" rather than "activity" to be > > the key category. > > > > As I understand it, "labour," or "production," is activity > > in the case where production and consumption and socially > > mediated, but I think that activity whose object is an > > object of consumption should be included within the basic > > category of Activity Theory, even if there are important > > psychological differences. Some are also concerned to > > separate symbolic activity, such as speech or supervision of > > labour, from the fundamental category, giving tool-use > > priority over sign use, and use of the term "labour" > > suggests that. Vygotsky expressed himself firmly against > > this move. > > > > So use of "activity" rather than "labour" or vice versa does > > reflect certain tensions within the tradition. > > > > Andy > > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Tool%20and% > > 20Sign%20in%20Vygotskys%20Development.pdf > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > On 26/10/2017 6:14 PM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. wrote: > > > Xmca seems to have a workerist tendency operating - for myself I > have > > always found that the work of generalising (in Vygotsky's sense) is a > > labour of object-oriented activity. But that's just me > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ > > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Alexander Surmava > > > Sent: 26 October 2017 00:13 > > > To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike > Cole; > > ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] ???: Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity > > and communication > > > > > > Dear Alfredo, > > > > > > thank you for your very accurate reaction. You definitely noticed > the > > main thing. Today, in the era of globalization and developed > technologies, > > the class antagonism between exploited people and their exploiters, > between > > capital and wage labor, assumes the appearance of the opposite > between > > different ethnic groups and cultures. Capital itself has always been > a > > global phenomenon, and a class of capitalists - a cosmopolitan class. > > Putting military overcoats on workers and sending them to fight and > to kill > > each other under nationalist slogans, they continued to cooperate > with > > their exploitation colleagues, somehow continuing to receive > dividends from > > their enterprises located on the territory of their "enemy." Today > Putin's > > friends and henchmen who curse the "insidious West" take their > capitals to > > this West, buy property there, send their children to study there > and go > > there themselves to rest and be treated. And today Mr. Poroshenko - > the > > president of the country that was subje > > > cted to the aggression of the neighboring state, owns chocolate > > factories located on the territory of this country. > > > In Russia, and in Western Europe, and in the United States, the > policy > > of the ruling classes is based today on inciting against each other > the > > working people of different ethnic groups and confessions, on their > > juxtaposition of each other as superior and second-class creatures. > > > And as an ideological justification of the enmity incited by the > ruling > > class towards working people of a different skin color, working > people > > speaking a different language and praying to other gods, public > > consciousness is infected with totally false ideas constructed > allegedly on > > a scientific basis. All this is not new. One hundred years ago, the > > dominant ideology rested on undisguised racism. Today, the same task > is > > being solved by more sophisticated means, appealing to so-called > "cultural" > > differences. Although the old ideology appealing to biological > differences > > has not disappeared. Only today it is covered by a new, > molecular-genetic > > argumentation, an appeal not only to livestock farming, but also to > the > > "psychology of culture". > > > It is possible to unmask this bourgeois lie, not only in words but > also > > in deeds, if we can understand that human development is not the > ability of > > individuals to experience (perejivat?) the meaning of words, but to > be > > genuine subjects of object-oriented activity, the subjects of labor. > > > If we stay on Vygotsky's theoretical positions, which believed > that the > > human psyche begins with acts of sensation that thinking is just a > verbal > > "generalization" of the material that our senses deliver to us, then > any > > wretched ideologist, with a well-suspended language, will seem to us > the > > owner of perfect wisdom, whereas a worker or a peasant doing his own > work, > > but not possessing the skill of ideological verbosity, will look > something > > inferior. > > > If someone is shocked by such an evaluation of Vygotsky's theory, > open > > his "Thinking and speach" and reread this key paragraph. > > > > > > > > > "It has been said that the dialectical leap is not only a > transition > > from matter that is incapable of sensation to matter that is capable > of > > sensation, but a transition from sensation to thought. This implies > that > > reality is reflected in consciousness in a qualitatively different > way in > > thinking than it is in immediate sensation. This qualitative > difference is > > primarily a function of a generalized reflection of reality. > Therefore, > > generalization in word meaning is an act of thinking in the true > sense of > > the word. At the same time, however, meaning is an inseparable part > of the > > word; it belongs not only to the domain of thought but to the domain > of > > speech. A word without meaning is not a word, but an empty sound. A > word > > without meaning no longer belongs to the domain of speech. One > cannot say > > of word meaning what we said earlier of the elements of the word > taken > > separately. Is word meaning speech or is it thought? It is both at > one and > > the same time; it is a unit of verbal thi > > > nking. It is obvious, then, that our method must be that of > semantic > > analysis. Our method must rely on the analysts of the meaningful > aspect of > > speech; it must be a method for studying verbal meaning. > > > > > > We can reasonably anticipate that this method will produce answers > to > > our questions concerning the relationship between thinking and speech > > because this relationship is already contained in the unit of > analysis. In > > studying the function, structure, and development of this unit, we > will > > come to understand a great deal that is of direct relevance to the > problem > > of the relationship of thinking to speech and to the nature of verbal > > thinking." > > > > > > > > > Obviously, such an "understanding" of thinking has not the > slightest > > relation to either Spinozism or Marxism. It is a naive attempt to > combine > > eclectically the old ideas of empirical psychology with the school > textbook > > of formal logic. > > > (Of course, I understand that this paragraph needs more detailed > > theoretical analysis. And I will not slow down this analysis in the > very > > near future. In the meantime, I only note that Vygotsky's assertion > that > > "generalization is a verbal act of thought" is a maximally aphoristic > > expression of his idealistic position. For us, as for the > materialists, the > > generalization is a practical act and its instrument is the > instrument of > > labor. And the initial and universal instrument of generalization is > not a > > sign, but an instrument of labor. So the ax is a means of > generalizing the > > properties of wood. The ax is, in the same time, a means of > analyzing all > > the same wood. All this is obvious, looking through the optics of > > Spinoza-Ilyenkov, that is, simply a Marxist definition of ideality.) > > Theoretical conclusions made by Vygotsky from the results of Luria's > trip > > to Uzbekistan logically follow from the above. The Uzbek illiterate > > peasant, not from school textbooks, but from his own labo > > > r experience knowing how the earth, aryk, water, hoe and melon are > > connected, and therefore refusing to produce meaningless formal > logical > > operations with words denoting these things, is declared a primitive > > thinking by "complexes". Simultaneously, any school crap who knows > how to > > pronounce definitions from his textbook and familiar with the melon > only > > when it is bought, washed and cut by his mommy, is declared the > bearer of > > scientific consciousness. > > > > > > Only in this way can we, as psychologists and teachers, come to the > > value of instruments of labor, not only for the distribution of > material > > wealth, but also for the distribution of the spiritual wealth, for > the > > distribution of the ability to think, for the distribution of > culture. Only > > in this way can we approach the Marxist definition of culture as the > > totality of the means of its object-oriented activity accumulated by > > humankind the means of its labor. Only on the path of such based on > idea of > > object-oriented activity understanding of man we will be able to get > out of > > the deadlock of the semiotic, with its symbolic arbitrariness. > > > Vygotsky's merit is that he was the first who seriously set the > task of > > creating a Marxist psychology and his merit can be considered that > the > > first real step in this direction was made by his friend and student > AN > > Leontiev.Our task is to continue their mission. > > > Sasha > > > > > > > > > > > > ??: Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >; > > Mike Cole ; ivan-dgf ; > Martin > > John Packer ; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? < > > haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>; Alexander Surmava < > > alexander.surmava@yahoo.com> > > > ??????????: ?????, 25 ??????? 2017 15:03 > > > ????: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity > and > > communication > > > > > > #yiv0081188988 #yiv0081188988 -- P {margin-top:0px;margin-bottom: > 0px;}#yiv0081188988 > > Dear Sasha, all, > > > > > > apologies for late response, as we've had some health issues at > home > > that fortunately are now dissipating but which have limited > participation > > anywhere else than home life. > > > > > > The real need of democratic pedagogy. That sounds like a concrete > aspect > > to begin moving on to what we had hoped at the beginning of this > > conversation: how is this all gonna be of practical (real) relevance > to us > > and not only armchair discussion. So, in what sense is this 'real,' > and is > > this a 'need'? (I am not addressing Sasha alone, I am addressing any > and > > everyone) > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > From: Alexander Surmava > > > Sent: 21 October 2017 13:36 > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole; Alfredo Jornet > Gil; > > ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? > > > Subject: ???: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity > > and communication Dear Martin,I think that if we're going to discuss > the > > method of Marx, then it is better to do it discussing his most > mature work. > > That is evidently "Das Kapital" and Ilyenkov's monograph "Dialectics > of the > > abstract and concrete in theoretical thinking". I am aware that > there is a > > point of view that the position of Marx as a humanist was adequately > > presented in Gr?ndrisse, whereas the humanistic core of Marx's > theory was > > allegedly lost in ?Das Kapital?. Accordingly, Marxism is better to > study > > with the help of Gr?ndrisse, and not with the help of ?Das Kapital?. > Along > > with Ilyenkov I do not share this view.I'm afraid that the > discussion of > > this topic would take us too far from our psychological themes. I > think > > that we should not get stuck in discussing the order of "steps", but > > immediately put our foot on the first "step" so that after that try > to rise > > from it to the seco > > > nd, and so on ... Taking into account my not young age, it seems > to me > > that at least for me, it's time to move on from the discussion of the > > method to the discussion of the subject, from the preparation to > thinking, > > to the thinking as such. Especially because the Method can not be > studied > > before and regardless of the study of the very subject. Perhaps this > seems > > paradoxical, but it is a paradox only for those who are not familiar > with > > the dialectic of Spinoza and Marx. Meanwhile, instead of discussing > the > > question - what is activity, or what is the psyche - we continue to > carry > > water in a sieve, discussing the singular or plural of the term > activity. > > Without a doubt, this topic is very useful for translators from > Russian (or > > German) language to English, but theoretically it is not very > informative. > > And besides, we are convinced that Andy Blunden completely exhausted > this > > topic a few years ago. Much more interesting would be to discuss the > > question: what is the justificati > > > on to declare Vygotsky the founder of activity theory. Where, in > any > > > of his works, Vygotsky introduces the concept of activity, not > just uses > > the term ?activity? in the theoretical contexts in which it is used > > habitually by idealistic psychology. ?The activity (or activities) of > > consciousness?, ?the activity (or activities) of mental functions?, > ?speech > > activity (or activities)?, the concrete activities of the > personality?- all > > this has nothing to do with object-oriented activity, with Spinoza > and > > Marx. It seems to me that our main mistake is that we are discussing > the > > subtleties of understanding the categories of activity by Vygotsky > and > > Leontyev, whereas we need something different. It is necessary to > try to > > formulate OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of the activity, proceeding from THE > REAL > > NEED OF THE PRACTICE OF DEMOCRATIC PEDAGOGY.It is impossible to > understand > > activity based on Vygotsky's ideas, because there was no such > theoretical > > category in his theoretical system of views. AN Leontiev introduces a > > category of object-oriented a > > > ctivity into psychology, but his theory is of little use for > solving > > practical problems too, for saying ?A?, Leontyev never said ?B?. > Having > > proposed the principle of activity as the universal basis of the > > psychological theory, its germ cell AN Leontiev did not go further > failing > > to concretize this correctly chosen abstract category.Once again, > from > > thehobby group of lovers of Vygotsky, with his "?ultural-?istorical > > Psychology" and AN Leontyev with his "Psychological Theory of > Activity" we > > all have to become community of researchers developing fundamentally > new > > approaches to education, based on dialectical, revolutionary method > of > > Marx.For the realization of this dream, it is necessary to begin not > so > > much - to learn to listen to each other... :-)Sincerely,Sasha > > > > > > ??: Martin John Packer > > > ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > ??????????: ???????, 20 ??????? 2017 3:08 > > > ????: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and > > communication > > > > > > Right, Marx was himself well aware of this difference. My point is > that > > we have begin to talk about ?the start? of Marx?s analysis, and > about its > > ?stages,? but these should not be equated with the order of the > treatment > > in Capital. > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden > nden@mira.net>> wrote: > > > > > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm > > > > > > Of course the method of presentation must differ in form > > > from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the > > > material in detail, to analyse its different forms of > > > development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only > > > after this work is done, can the actual movement be > > > adequately described. If this is done successfully, if > > > the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as > > > in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a > > > mere a priori construction. > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Andy Blunden > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > > > Seems to me that if we?re going to talk about the details of Marx?s > > analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. The > two have > > virtually opposite organizations; it?s clear that the order of > presentation > > in Capital was not the order of analysis. > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Mon Oct 30 15:24:26 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 07:24:26 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus In-Reply-To: <63b6cdff-0946-ccb1-0141-2f000e9167a7@llaisdy.com> References: <51C8AFD6-52B4-4C50-85BA-B7BDE4411628@llaisdy.com> <63b6cdff-0946-ccb1-0141-2f000e9167a7@llaisdy.com> Message-ID: I'm enjoying the phonology of this thread a lot, but I don't want to shut out people who don't go weak-kneed at the thought of unvoiced Japanese vowels, so let me start with a point of larger interest to the list. The point I was making was that Chinese phonologists didn't require vowels to describe their own language. Systemic-functional linguists like Halliday believe that linguistic categories don't have any extra-linguistic or supra-linguistic status; they are simply language turned back on itself. That means that the best descriptors tend to be found within the language we are describing; the auto-ethnographic tradition of Boas, Sapir, and Whorf were not simply "morally" superior to the missionary tradition, they also came up with better descriptors, just as the Chinese anthropologists who are doing work on, say, prestation or arranged marriages today are to be preferred to the European travellers of the nineteenth century or to the crap that I wrote in my twenties. I agree with Ivan that we need sub-syllabic units to describe a phonology, and I think that's what Chinese linguists were getting at with their rhyming dictionaries and also what the zhuyin system provides for Taiwan linguists. Unlike the missionary systems (e.g. Yale, Wade-Giles, etc.), these are Chinese phonologies by Chinese phonologists, and they don't use vowels. Of course, they have to refer to the same phenomena that we refer to when we say "vowel", but (like a child and an adult who use the same object reference but different meanings, or like Frege's famous example of "the victor at Jena" and "the vanquished at Waterloo") they refer to the same phenomena in a different way. Both "aperture" and "vowel" are attempts to describe a quality we might call "openness". But they do it differently. First of all, "aperture" is dynamic. In order to describe a Chinese syllable, we need descriptors that are different at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of a sound, e.g. tone. A "vowel" is imagined to be a constant quality, associated with a particular position in the vowel triangle, and a specific value for the first and second formants (or, if you prefer the Chomsky-Halle description, a specific combination of distinctive features). Secondly, "aperture" is corporeally manifest but "vowel" is not. We can see it on an MRI scan, and even I can discern it on a spectrograph. But vowels are really abstractions from the physical position of the articulators. It turns out, when we compare MRI scans with those palatographs that poor old Daniel Jones did with chalk dust on his tongue and a slate stuck into his mouth, that there are many ways of producing the same vowel, and many vowels associated with a particular position. The letter 'y' in English is sometimes a vowel ("lovely") and sometimes a consonant ("yellow"), and it is really indistinguishable from the sound /i/ which we find as a vowel in "feel" and "real" etc. The sound /h/ is supposed to be a consonant in English but it is a very open sound (and in fact it drives lip readers crazy because it always takes the lip shape of the following vowel instead of having a lip shape of its own). Korean, which does use vowels and consonants, has a "ghost" consonant "nieung" because it is the opposite of English--in English we don't allow consonants to appear on their own, but in Korean vowels are not allowed to form syllables on their own so they have to begin with the silent consonant "nieung" which is pronounced "ng" at the end of the syllable. Arabic has sound ?, which is an indubitable consonant by Arabic distributional rules, but one of the most "open" sounds that you can make (it's the sound you would make if you tried to swallow a large date whole while keeping your mouth wide open). So there is a reliable relationship between aperture and some physical posture, but there is no such relationship with "vowel". Finally, Rod. Ivan is right--I was putting together two expressions that James used to make a kind of antithetical couplet up. The two expressions are not actually used together, although they can be (if you are watching an opera, and you shout out one, somebody might reply with the other). But I was trying to make a larger point about the "favorite clauses" that we find in Chinese. All languages have "preferred clause types", so for example we don't very often say things like "Why is not known by me" or "A donkey in Bremen was there in Germany long ago" in English. One of the reasons why, say, the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch sounds so prosaic when it is translated into English is that it ignores the kinds of favorite clause that Chinese people use. On the desk in front of me, I have a lamp that my wife made from the "duelling antithetical coujplets" of the Platform Sutra. Shen shi bo di shu Xin ru ming jing tai (Prosaically: "The body is a bodhi tree/the mind is like a mirror" but literally: "Flesh is Bo Di tree/mind like clear glass stand") I think you can see that the original is designed around antitheses: 5 syllables vs. 5 syllables, body vs. mind, living tree vs. wooden stand and even "to be" vs. "seems like". I thought that James' two expressions are similar, because the first describes a material process of industrial production; I think it refers to the smelting of bronze, which is why I translated the character "qing" as green rather than "blue" as Ivan suggests. The second line descibes something magical or metaphysical (my wife, for example, thinks that "shen" should be translated "fairy" rather than "god"). The first has color, temperature, and sensuous qualities, while the second is more ethereal and has only a ghostly movement in and out. David Kellogg On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Ivan Uemlianin wrote: > There's also Zhuyin (??) of course, an indigenous transliteration system > for Mandarin (used mainly in Taiwan these days). Doesn't use the Latin > alphabet; does have symbols for consonants and vowels. Developed around > 1912. > > Ivan > > > On 30/10/2017 13:44, Ivan Uemlianin wrote: > >> Missionaries have been romanising Chinese since the 16th century. The >> first modern indigenous Chinese romanization system was developed in 1892 >> #wikipedia. In any case my point is about phonology not orthography. >> >> Ivan >> >> >> On 30/10/2017 13:30, James Ma wrote: >> >>> In general there are no Chinese characters indicative of a vowel or a >>> consonant. Speaking orthographically, Chinese is ideograph-based, whereas >>> English phonograph-based. These are two different orthographical systems. >>> What is distinctive about Chinese language is that each character is >>> constructed as an idea or a concept and has its historical, literary and >>> aesthetic origin. This is probably why learning Chinese presents a >>> considerable challenge for speakers of phonograph-based languages. David >>> was correct, there wasn?t a romanisation system until 1950s when Pinyin >>> was >>> created as a romanisation system for standard Chinese, Hanyu ??, hence >>> Hanyu Pinyin ????. >>> >>> >>> James >>> >>> >>> On 29 October 2017 at 22:55, David Kellogg wrote: >>> >>> Halliday would describe it as a difference in aperture. "Man" is open, >>>> while "men" is half-open. You can feel and even see your jaw moving when >>>> you move from one to the other. >>>> >>>> Aperture is best thought of dynamically, as a movement from one posture >>>> to >>>> another rather than as a single static posture, as when we describe >>>> vowels. >>>> So once again it is better thought of as prosody than as articulation. >>>> >>>> Take a look at this: >>>> >>>> https://functionallinguistics.springeropen.com/articles/10. >>>> 1186/2196-419X-1-2 >>>> >>>> Halliday's model is not as idiosyncratic--or as language specific--as it >>>> seems. A lot of linguists agree that phonemes are essentially >>>> reifications >>>> of graphemes, and that syllables are a better model for understanding >>>> spoken phonology. In fact, when we read Vygotsky, we see that he uses >>>> the >>>> term "phoneme" in a rather strange way: he doesn't mean vowels and >>>> consonants, because these actually DON'T have any meaning except in >>>> comparison to other possible selections a speaker might have made but >>>> didn't. In fact, the example he gives of "phonemes" in the Lectures on >>>> Pedology are Russian case endings. Russian case endings are actually not >>>> phonemes at all but morphemes. >>>> >>>> Vygotsky went to school with Jakobson and probably studied with >>>> Trubetskoy. >>>> So for him a "phoneme" is really what we would call a morpho-phoneme. >>>> More >>>> like a Chinese character than a vowel or a consonant! >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Ivan Uemlianin >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Without referring to vowels, how would one describe the phonological >>>>> difference in Mandarin between ? and ?? >>>>> >>>>> Ivan >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> festina lente >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 29 Oct 2017, at 20:59, David Kellogg wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Chinese phonologists didn't use romanization until the 1950s (and even >>>>>> >>>>> then >>>>> >>>>>> it was mostly . Even in old rhyming dictionaries, the main unit of >>>>>> >>>>> analysis >>>>> >>>>>> is the morpho-syllable (i.e. the written character, but spoken). The >>>>>> dictionaries are conscious of an onset and a rhyme, but not a vowel or >>>>>> >>>>> a >>>> >>>>> consonant. You can see that the "rhyme" (that is, the "tail" of the >>>>>> syllable) is always either a vowel or a nasal, but not a stop. Vowels >>>>>> >>>>> and >>>> >>>>> consonants don't explain this (and they don't explain tones either), so >>>>>> it's hardly surprising that Chinese phonologists were not interested >>>>>> in >>>>>> them.. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, suppose we consider Chinese as the OPPOSITE of English. English >>>>>> >>>>> puts >>>> >>>>> articulation (vowels and consonants) at the centre of its phonological >>>>>> description and considers prosoday (intonation and stress) to be >>>>>> peripheral, but Chinese is the other way around. We can easily descibe >>>>>> every syllable in Chinese as a set of half a dozen prosodic features: >>>>>> initial posture, final posture, voice onset, aperture (open or >>>>>> closed), >>>>>> >>>>> and >>>>> >>>>>> of course tone. This is a much better description, and it doesn't use >>>>>> vowels or consonants. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think that "chengyu" doesn't really capture the literary flavor very >>>>>> well, and that was what I wanted to say when I compared them to >>>>>> antithetical couplets. By introducing them in pairs, James is >>>>>> >>>>> introducing >>>> >>>>> two important semantic features of Chinese which are lost on >>>>>> non-Sinophones, and which are essential to understanding the specific >>>>>> dialectics of Chinese: the four-syllable line, which is of great >>>>>> >>>>> antiquity, >>>>> >>>>>> and the tendency to produce couplets. I always thought that "chengyu" >>>>>> >>>>> are >>>> >>>>> more prosaic, more like proverbs. But Ivan, as usual, knows better! >>>>>> >>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 7:00 PM, James Ma >>>>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> In Chinese grammatical terms, the first one ???? is the >>>>>>> >>>>>> "subject-predicate" >>>>> >>>>>> type, for example, ???? masculinity and femininity are complementary >>>>>>> >>>>>> to >>>> >>>>> each other; the second one ???? the "symmetric relation" type, for >>>>>>> >>>>>> example, >>>>> >>>>>> ???? (of vocal performance) clear articulation of the lyrics and >>>>>>> >>>>>> perfect >>>> >>>>> execution of the tone. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> James >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 29 October 2017 at 09:10, Rod Parker-Rees < >>>>>>> >>>>>> R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk >>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks David, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am always fascinated by insights into how language is used in >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> different >>>>> >>>>>> ways to nuance and shade meanings. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can you explain how these couplets are 'antithetical'? The second >>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>> clearly juxtaposes merging and emerging but I was intrigued by how >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> the >>>> >>>>> furnace burning with a pure green hue is seen as an antithesis. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All the best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rod >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ >>>>>>>> mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg >>>>>>>> Sent: 29 October 2017 00:28 >>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You notice that James gives us two antithetical couplets, each of >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> four >>>> >>>>> syllables (Chinese, like child protolanguage, doesn't differentiate >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> vowels >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and consonants). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ???? >>>>>>>> ???? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> L? hu? ch?n q?ng (the fire of the furnace burns a pure green hue) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ch? >>>> >>>>> sh?n r? hu? (The god emerges and merges, comes out and goes in) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I haven't actually rendered the feeling that a Chinese person feels >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> on >>>> >>>>> hearing these expressions, any more than the words "consummate" or >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> "superb" >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> communicate the thought. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For one thing, my translation is too labored and literal; a a >>>>>>>> Chinese >>>>>>>> person doesn't analyze so literally and the imagery is largley >>>>>>>> "automatized" rather than visualized. >>>>>>>> For another, the four character line has a history that goes all the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> way >>>>> >>>>>> back to the Book of Songs (11th C BCE) and all the way up to the >>>>>>>> antithetical couplets peasants put on their doorways as Spring >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Festival >>>> >>>>> in >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the the countryside >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (But James is right: the idea of antithetical couplets is a kind of >>>>>>>> natural dialectic built into the Chinese language. >>>>>>>> Somedays, like today, I find it that it influences the way I write >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> English.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 6:21 AM, James Ma >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I often find it interesting to read David?s words, good and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> catalytic >>>> >>>>> to me. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I?ve been working on the Peirce-Vygotsky project and Peirce?s idea >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> of >>>> >>>>> final logical interpretant which I take to be a qualitative >>>>>>>>> transformation, perhaps equivalent to ?a dialectical leap?. To me, >>>>>>>>> this transformation is not only attributable to an accrued >>>>>>>>> quantitative change but also bears itself the heritage of all the >>>>>>>>> earlier qualitative changes. So, the resultant final logical >>>>>>>>> interpretant encapsulates both qualitative and quantitative >>>>>>>>> changes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> By the way, on the face of it, ?a dialectical leap? is a more >>>>>>>>> congenial and customary concept to most Chinese people (from >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mainland) >>>> >>>>> due to historical reasons. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In a stage drama, I agree with David that an actor?s privileged >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> access >>>> >>>>> is a real problem for him. This privileged access will have to be >>>>>>>>> calibrated or attuned to a dialectical leap in such a way that the >>>>>>>>> actor needs to make a choice from the plenitude of signs that are >>>>>>>>> constantly on the move both consciously and subliminally. However, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> in >>>> >>>>> the case of Peking opera, a dialectical leap is far more complex >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> since >>>> >>>>> there is more to it. The actor is involved in an organic combination >>>>>>>>> of vocal performance, acrobatics and dance etc. Perhaps, >>>>>>>>> dialectical >>>>>>>>> leap is not quite a right word to reflect what is perceived as the >>>>>>>>> essence of Peking opera: ???? consummate, and ???? >>>>>>>>> superb. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *James Ma* *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 28 October 2017 at 00:26, David Kellogg >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've always been restless with the idea that language is a >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> self-organizing >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> system, or that it has a "fractal" structure in the sense of the >>>>>>>>>> "self-similarity" we find in a fern leaf--the same structure at >>>>>>>>>> every level. I suppose my impatience is ideological: I believe >>>>>>>>>> language organization is semantically driven (and semantic >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> structure >>>> >>>>> is a realization/transformation of some of the structures found in >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> contexts). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't think that vowels and consonants organize themselves into >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> syllables >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> without human intentions, nor do I think that syllables will form >>>>>>>>>> words unless somebody makes them do it. As for grammar, it seems >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> me that to expect that even the very limited grammar found in this >>>>>>>>>> paragraph you are reading should somehow be "thrown up" by the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> words >>>> >>>>> I am using and their elective affinities is a little like expecting >>>>>>>>>> medieval cathedrals to be thrown up by the mutual attraction of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> stones that compose them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, I know. Consonants are what happen in the absence of vowels >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (at >>>> >>>>> the ends of vowel phrases). Vowels are what happen at the ends of >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> consonants. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As soon as you have breath, vocal cord vibration, and a beginning >>>>>>>>>> and an end to it, you have the primitive structure (Optional >>>>>>>>>> Consonant) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Mandatory >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Vowel (Optioinal Consonant), and from this we can derive all the >>>>>>>>>> possible syllable structures of any language. You can do the same >>>>>>>>>> trick at any >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> level >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> of language: If you have a morpheme like "work" or "play" you can >>>>>>>>>> add a bound morpheme to either end ("re~" and/or "~ed"),and if you >>>>>>>>>> have a >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> clause >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> like "Work!" you can add a bound clause to either end ("If you are >>>>>>>>>> so willing~" and/or "so as to enrich yourselves!") and the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> existence >>>> >>>>> of xmca itself shows how this principle works on units above the >>>>>>>>>> clause--Mike's last post is not really intelligible without my >>>>>>>>>> preceding one, and mine >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> not really intelligible without James's, etc. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But I'm not talking about the various forms of language, potential >>>>>>>>>> and real; these are of course the affordances of the stuff of >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> made, just as the limits of what you can do on a canvas has >>>>>>>>>> something to >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> with the consistency of the paint. I'm talking about what people >>>>>>>>>> actually do and not just what they may or might do. So for example >>>>>>>>>> when we look at "To be or not to be" or at the speeches we find in >>>>>>>>>> "Shajiabang" or even, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Mike suggests, at the language of everyday life, we find that >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> vowels >>>> >>>>> tend to carry the feeling of what we say (that's why they are >>>>>>>>>> elongated in tonics and why they are directed in tonality). >>>>>>>>>> Consonants, on the >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> hand, work better for the nuances of thinking. That's why we sing >>>>>>>>>> the vowels, but spell with consonants; why Ophelia says "Oh what a >>>>>>>>>> noble mind is here o'erthrone!" but Hamlet says "Nymph, in thy >>>>>>>>>> orisons be all my >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> sins >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> remembered!". And so once again we find that feeling and thinking >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> both >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> linked and distinct, to say the which is surely to say no more and >>>>>>>>>> no >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> less >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> than to say that they are joined/separated by a dialectical leap. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>>> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]>>>>>>> //www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended >>>>>>>> solely >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> for >>>>> >>>>>> the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the >>>>>>>> intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the >>>>>>>> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> on >>>> >>>>> it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know >>>>>>>> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> not >>>> >>>>> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> accepts >>>>> >>>>>> no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> emails >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> responsibility >>>>> >>>>>> for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its >>>>>>>> attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> accompanied >>>>> >>>>>> by an official order form. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >> > -- > ============================================================ > Ivan A. Uemlianin PhD > Llaisdy > > Ymchwil a Datblygu Technoleg Lleferydd > Speech Technology Research and Development > > ivan@llaisdy.com > @llaisdy > llaisdy.wordpress.com > github.com/llaisdy > www.linkedin.com/in/ivanuemlianin > > festina lente > ============================================================ > > From ivan@llaisdy.com Mon Oct 30 15:46:54 2017 From: ivan@llaisdy.com (Ivan Uemlianin) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 22:46:54 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus In-Reply-To: References: <51C8AFD6-52B4-4C50-85BA-B7BDE4411628@llaisdy.com> <63b6cdff-0946-ccb1-0141-2f000e9167a7@llaisdy.com> Message-ID: <7e127086-ad6d-f470-685b-b51a09a8848c@llaisdy.com> Completely agree that the whole IPA idea is fundamentally flawed (if that's where you're pointing), in many ways.? Very handy for Brits in the field though. The most intelligent critiques of Vygotsky I've read (non-Marxist critiques) are from SFL people.? I'm thinking mainly of Ruqaiya Hasan. Ivan On 30/10/2017 22:24, David Kellogg wrote: > I'm enjoying the phonology of this thread a lot, but I don't want to shut > out people who don't go weak-kneed at the thought of unvoiced Japanese > vowels, so let me start with a point of larger interest to the list. > > The point I was making was that Chinese phonologists didn't require vowels > to describe their own language. Systemic-functional linguists like > Halliday believe that linguistic categories don't have any extra-linguistic > or supra-linguistic status; they are simply language turned back on itself. > That means that the best descriptors tend to be found within the language > we are describing; the auto-ethnographic tradition of Boas, Sapir, and > Whorf were not simply "morally" superior to the missionary tradition, they > also came up with better descriptors, just as the Chinese anthropologists > who are doing work on, say, prestation or arranged marriages today are to > be preferred to the European travellers of the nineteenth century or to the > crap that I wrote in my twenties. > > I agree with Ivan that we need sub-syllabic units to describe a phonology, > and I think that's what Chinese linguists were getting at with their > rhyming dictionaries and also what the zhuyin system provides for Taiwan > linguists. Unlike the missionary systems (e.g. Yale, Wade-Giles, etc.), > these are Chinese phonologies by Chinese phonologists, and they don't use > vowels. Of course, they have to refer to the same phenomena that we refer > to when we say "vowel", but (like a child and an adult who use the same > object reference but different meanings, or like Frege's famous example of > "the victor at Jena" and "the vanquished at Waterloo") they refer to the > same phenomena in a different way. Both "aperture" and "vowel" are > attempts to describe a quality we might call "openness". But they do it > differently. > > First of all, "aperture" is dynamic. In order to describe a Chinese > syllable, we need descriptors that are different at the beginning, in the > middle, and at the end of a sound, e.g. tone. A "vowel" is imagined to be a > constant quality, associated with a particular position in the vowel > triangle, and a specific value for the first and second formants (or, if > you prefer the Chomsky-Halle description, a specific combination of > distinctive features). Secondly, "aperture" is corporeally manifest but > "vowel" is not. We can see it on an MRI scan, and even I can discern it on > a spectrograph. But vowels are really abstractions from the physical > position of the articulators. It turns out, when we compare MRI scans with > those palatographs that poor old Daniel Jones did with chalk dust on his > tongue and a slate stuck into his mouth, that there are many ways of > producing the same vowel, and many vowels associated with a particular > position. The letter 'y' in English is sometimes a vowel ("lovely") and > sometimes a consonant ("yellow"), and it is really indistinguishable from > the sound /i/ which we find as a vowel in "feel" and "real" etc. The sound > /h/ is supposed to be a consonant in English but it is a very open sound > (and in fact it drives lip readers crazy because it always takes the lip > shape of the following vowel instead of having a lip shape of its own). > Korean, which does use vowels and consonants, has a "ghost" consonant > "nieung" because it is the opposite of English--in English we don't allow > consonants to appear on their own, but in Korean vowels are not allowed to > form syllables on their own so they have to begin with the silent consonant > "nieung" which is pronounced "ng" at the end of the syllable. Arabic has > sound ?, which is an indubitable consonant by Arabic distributional rules, > but one of the most "open" sounds that you can make (it's the sound you > would make if you tried to swallow a large date whole while keeping your > mouth wide open). So there is a reliable relationship between aperture and > some physical posture, but there is no such relationship with "vowel". > > Finally, Rod. Ivan is right--I was putting together two expressions that > James used to make a kind of antithetical couplet up. The two expressions > are not actually used together, although they can be (if you are watching > an opera, and you shout out one, somebody might reply with the other). But > I was trying to make a larger point about the "favorite clauses" that we > find in Chinese. All languages have "preferred clause types", so for > example we don't very often say things like "Why is not known by me" or "A > donkey in Bremen was there in Germany long ago" in English. One of the > reasons why, say, the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch sounds so > prosaic when it is translated into English is that it ignores the kinds of > favorite clause that Chinese people use. On the desk in front of me, I have > a lamp that my wife made from the "duelling antithetical coujplets" of the > Platform Sutra. > > Shen shi bo di shu > Xin ru ming jing tai > (Prosaically: "The body is a bodhi tree/the mind is like a mirror" but > literally: "Flesh is Bo Di tree/mind like clear glass stand") > > I think you can see that the original is designed around antitheses: 5 > syllables vs. 5 syllables, body vs. mind, living tree vs. wooden stand and > even "to be" vs. "seems like". > > I thought that James' two expressions are similar, because the first > describes a material process of industrial production; I think it refers to > the smelting of bronze, which is why I translated the character "qing" as > green rather than "blue" as Ivan suggests. The second line descibes > something magical or metaphysical (my wife, for example, thinks that "shen" > should be translated "fairy" rather than "god"). The first has color, > temperature, and sensuous qualities, while the second is more ethereal and > has only a ghostly movement in and out. > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Ivan Uemlianin wrote: > >> There's also Zhuyin (??) of course, an indigenous transliteration system >> for Mandarin (used mainly in Taiwan these days). Doesn't use the Latin >> alphabet; does have symbols for consonants and vowels. Developed around >> 1912. >> >> Ivan >> >> >> On 30/10/2017 13:44, Ivan Uemlianin wrote: >> >>> Missionaries have been romanising Chinese since the 16th century. The >>> first modern indigenous Chinese romanization system was developed in 1892 >>> #wikipedia. In any case my point is about phonology not orthography. >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>> >>> On 30/10/2017 13:30, James Ma wrote: >>> >>>> In general there are no Chinese characters indicative of a vowel or a >>>> consonant. Speaking orthographically, Chinese is ideograph-based, whereas >>>> English phonograph-based. These are two different orthographical systems. >>>> What is distinctive about Chinese language is that each character is >>>> constructed as an idea or a concept and has its historical, literary and >>>> aesthetic origin. This is probably why learning Chinese presents a >>>> considerable challenge for speakers of phonograph-based languages. David >>>> was correct, there wasn?t a romanisation system until 1950s when Pinyin >>>> was >>>> created as a romanisation system for standard Chinese, Hanyu ??, hence >>>> Hanyu Pinyin ????. >>>> >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> >>>> On 29 October 2017 at 22:55, David Kellogg wrote: >>>> >>>> Halliday would describe it as a difference in aperture. "Man" is open, >>>>> while "men" is half-open. You can feel and even see your jaw moving when >>>>> you move from one to the other. >>>>> >>>>> Aperture is best thought of dynamically, as a movement from one posture >>>>> to >>>>> another rather than as a single static posture, as when we describe >>>>> vowels. >>>>> So once again it is better thought of as prosody than as articulation. >>>>> >>>>> Take a look at this: >>>>> >>>>> https://functionallinguistics.springeropen.com/articles/10. >>>>> 1186/2196-419X-1-2 >>>>> >>>>> Halliday's model is not as idiosyncratic--or as language specific--as it >>>>> seems. A lot of linguists agree that phonemes are essentially >>>>> reifications >>>>> of graphemes, and that syllables are a better model for understanding >>>>> spoken phonology. In fact, when we read Vygotsky, we see that he uses >>>>> the >>>>> term "phoneme" in a rather strange way: he doesn't mean vowels and >>>>> consonants, because these actually DON'T have any meaning except in >>>>> comparison to other possible selections a speaker might have made but >>>>> didn't. In fact, the example he gives of "phonemes" in the Lectures on >>>>> Pedology are Russian case endings. Russian case endings are actually not >>>>> phonemes at all but morphemes. >>>>> >>>>> Vygotsky went to school with Jakobson and probably studied with >>>>> Trubetskoy. >>>>> So for him a "phoneme" is really what we would call a morpho-phoneme. >>>>> More >>>>> like a Chinese character than a vowel or a consonant! >>>>> >>>>> David Kellogg >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Ivan Uemlianin >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Without referring to vowels, how would one describe the phonological >>>>>> difference in Mandarin between ? and ?? >>>>>> >>>>>> Ivan >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> festina lente >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 29 Oct 2017, at 20:59, David Kellogg wrote: >>>>>>> Chinese phonologists didn't use romanization until the 1950s (and even >>>>>>> >>>>>> then >>>>>> >>>>>>> it was mostly . Even in old rhyming dictionaries, the main unit of >>>>>>> >>>>>> analysis >>>>>> >>>>>>> is the morpho-syllable (i.e. the written character, but spoken). The >>>>>>> dictionaries are conscious of an onset and a rhyme, but not a vowel or >>>>>>> >>>>>> a >>>>>> consonant. You can see that the "rhyme" (that is, the "tail" of the >>>>>>> syllable) is always either a vowel or a nasal, but not a stop. Vowels >>>>>>> >>>>>> and >>>>>> consonants don't explain this (and they don't explain tones either), so >>>>>>> it's hardly surprising that Chinese phonologists were not interested >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> them.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now, suppose we consider Chinese as the OPPOSITE of English. English >>>>>>> >>>>>> puts >>>>>> articulation (vowels and consonants) at the centre of its phonological >>>>>>> description and considers prosoday (intonation and stress) to be >>>>>>> peripheral, but Chinese is the other way around. We can easily descibe >>>>>>> every syllable in Chinese as a set of half a dozen prosodic features: >>>>>>> initial posture, final posture, voice onset, aperture (open or >>>>>>> closed), >>>>>>> >>>>>> and >>>>>> >>>>>>> of course tone. This is a much better description, and it doesn't use >>>>>>> vowels or consonants. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think that "chengyu" doesn't really capture the literary flavor very >>>>>>> well, and that was what I wanted to say when I compared them to >>>>>>> antithetical couplets. By introducing them in pairs, James is >>>>>>> >>>>>> introducing >>>>>> two important semantic features of Chinese which are lost on >>>>>>> non-Sinophones, and which are essential to understanding the specific >>>>>>> dialectics of Chinese: the four-syllable line, which is of great >>>>>>> >>>>>> antiquity, >>>>>> >>>>>>> and the tendency to produce couplets. I always thought that "chengyu" >>>>>>> >>>>>> are >>>>>> more prosaic, more like proverbs. But Ivan, as usual, knows better! >>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 7:00 PM, James Ma >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> In Chinese grammatical terms, the first one ???? is the >>>>>>> "subject-predicate" >>>>>>> type, for example, ???? masculinity and femininity are complementary >>>>>>> to >>>>>> each other; the second one ???? the "symmetric relation" type, for >>>>>>> example, >>>>>>> ???? (of vocal performance) clear articulation of the lyrics and >>>>>>> perfect >>>>>> execution of the tone. >>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 29 October 2017 at 09:10, Rod Parker-Rees < >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Thanks David, >>>>>>>>> I am always fascinated by insights into how language is used in >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> different >>>>>>> ways to nuance and shade meanings. >>>>>>>>> Can you explain how these couplets are 'antithetical'? The second >>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>> clearly juxtaposes merging and emerging but I was intrigued by how >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the >>>>>> furnace burning with a pure green hue is seen as an antithesis. >>>>>>>>> All the best, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rod >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ >>>>>>>>> mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg >>>>>>>>> Sent: 29 October 2017 00:28 >>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You notice that James gives us two antithetical couplets, each of >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> four >>>>>> syllables (Chinese, like child protolanguage, doesn't differentiate >>>>>>>> vowels >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and consonants). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ???? >>>>>>>>> ???? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> L? hu? ch?n q?ng (the fire of the furnace burns a pure green hue) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ch? >>>>>> sh?n r? hu? (The god emerges and merges, comes out and goes in) >>>>>>>>> I haven't actually rendered the feeling that a Chinese person feels >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> on >>>>>> hearing these expressions, any more than the words "consummate" or >>>>>>>> "superb" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> communicate the thought. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For one thing, my translation is too labored and literal; a a >>>>>>>>> Chinese >>>>>>>>> person doesn't analyze so literally and the imagery is largley >>>>>>>>> "automatized" rather than visualized. >>>>>>>>> For another, the four character line has a history that goes all the >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> way >>>>>>> back to the Book of Songs (11th C BCE) and all the way up to the >>>>>>>>> antithetical couplets peasants put on their doorways as Spring >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Festival >>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> the the countryside >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (But James is right: the idea of antithetical couplets is a kind of >>>>>>>>> natural dialectic built into the Chinese language. >>>>>>>>> Somedays, like today, I find it that it influences the way I write >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> English.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 6:21 AM, James Ma >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> I often find it interesting to read David?s words, good and >>>>>>>>> catalytic >>>>>> to me. >>>>>>>>>> I?ve been working on the Peirce-Vygotsky project and Peirce?s idea >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>> final logical interpretant which I take to be a qualitative >>>>>>>>>> transformation, perhaps equivalent to ?a dialectical leap?. To me, >>>>>>>>>> this transformation is not only attributable to an accrued >>>>>>>>>> quantitative change but also bears itself the heritage of all the >>>>>>>>>> earlier qualitative changes. So, the resultant final logical >>>>>>>>>> interpretant encapsulates both qualitative and quantitative >>>>>>>>>> changes. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> By the way, on the face of it, ?a dialectical leap? is a more >>>>>>>>>> congenial and customary concept to most Chinese people (from >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Mainland) >>>>>> due to historical reasons. >>>>>>>>>> In a stage drama, I agree with David that an actor?s privileged >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> access >>>>>> is a real problem for him. This privileged access will have to be >>>>>>>>>> calibrated or attuned to a dialectical leap in such a way that the >>>>>>>>>> actor needs to make a choice from the plenitude of signs that are >>>>>>>>>> constantly on the move both consciously and subliminally. However, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>> the case of Peking opera, a dialectical leap is far more complex >>>>>>>>> since >>>>>> there is more to it. The actor is involved in an organic combination >>>>>>>>>> of vocal performance, acrobatics and dance etc. Perhaps, >>>>>>>>>> dialectical >>>>>>>>>> leap is not quite a right word to reflect what is perceived as the >>>>>>>>>> essence of Peking opera: ???? consummate, and ???? >>>>>>>>>> superb. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *James Ma* *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa >>>>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 28 October 2017 at 00:26, David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> I've always been restless with the idea that language is a >>>>>>>>>> self-organizing >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> system, or that it has a "fractal" structure in the sense of the >>>>>>>>>>> "self-similarity" we find in a fern leaf--the same structure at >>>>>>>>>>> every level. I suppose my impatience is ideological: I believe >>>>>>>>>>> language organization is semantically driven (and semantic >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> structure >>>>>> is a realization/transformation of some of the structures found in >>>>>>>>>> contexts). >>>>>>>>>> So >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that vowels and consonants organize themselves into >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> syllables >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> without human intentions, nor do I think that syllables will form >>>>>>>>>>> words unless somebody makes them do it. As for grammar, it seems >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> me that to expect that even the very limited grammar found in this >>>>>>>>>>> paragraph you are reading should somehow be "thrown up" by the >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> words >>>>>> I am using and their elective affinities is a little like expecting >>>>>>>>>>> medieval cathedrals to be thrown up by the mutual attraction of >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> stones that compose them. >>>>>>>>>> Yes, I know. Consonants are what happen in the absence of vowels >>>>>>>>>> (at >>>>>> the ends of vowel phrases). Vowels are what happen at the ends of >>>>>>>>>> consonants. >>>>>>>>>> As soon as you have breath, vocal cord vibration, and a beginning >>>>>>>>>>> and an end to it, you have the primitive structure (Optional >>>>>>>>>>> Consonant) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Mandatory >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Vowel (Optioinal Consonant), and from this we can derive all the >>>>>>>>>>> possible syllable structures of any language. You can do the same >>>>>>>>>>> trick at any >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> level >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> of language: If you have a morpheme like "work" or "play" you can >>>>>>>>>>> add a bound morpheme to either end ("re~" and/or "~ed"),and if you >>>>>>>>>>> have a >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> clause >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> like "Work!" you can add a bound clause to either end ("If you are >>>>>>>>>>> so willing~" and/or "so as to enrich yourselves!") and the >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> existence >>>>>> of xmca itself shows how this principle works on units above the >>>>>>>>>>> clause--Mike's last post is not really intelligible without my >>>>>>>>>>> preceding one, and mine >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> not really intelligible without James's, etc. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But I'm not talking about the various forms of language, potential >>>>>>>>>>> and real; these are of course the affordances of the stuff of >>>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>>> language >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> made, just as the limits of what you can do on a canvas has >>>>>>>>>>> something to >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> with the consistency of the paint. I'm talking about what people >>>>>>>>>>> actually do and not just what they may or might do. So for example >>>>>>>>>>> when we look at "To be or not to be" or at the speeches we find in >>>>>>>>>>> "Shajiabang" or even, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Mike suggests, at the language of everyday life, we find that >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> vowels >>>>>> tend to carry the feeling of what we say (that's why they are >>>>>>>>>>> elongated in tonics and why they are directed in tonality). >>>>>>>>>>> Consonants, on the >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> hand, work better for the nuances of thinking. That's why we sing >>>>>>>>>>> the vowels, but spell with consonants; why Ophelia says "Oh what a >>>>>>>>>>> noble mind is here o'erthrone!" but Hamlet says "Nymph, in thy >>>>>>>>>>> orisons be all my >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> sins >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> remembered!". And so once again we find that feeling and thinking >>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> both >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> linked and distinct, to say the which is surely to say no more and >>>>>>>>>>> no >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> less >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> than to say that they are joined/separated by a dialectical leap. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>>>> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]>>>>>>>> //www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended >>>>>>>>> solely >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>> the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the >>>>>>>>> intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the >>>>>>>>> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> on >>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know >>>>>>>>> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> not >>>>>> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University >>>>>>>> accepts >>>>>>> no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan >>>>>>>> emails >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> responsibility >>>>>>> for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its >>>>>>>>> attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> accompanied >>>>>>> by an official order form. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >> -- >> ============================================================ >> Ivan A. Uemlianin PhD >> Llaisdy >> >> Ymchwil a Datblygu Technoleg Lleferydd >> Speech Technology Research and Development >> >> ivan@llaisdy.com >> @llaisdy >> llaisdy.wordpress.com >> github.com/llaisdy >> www.linkedin.com/in/ivanuemlianin >> >> festina lente >> ============================================================ >> >> -- ============================================================ Ivan A. Uemlianin PhD Llaisdy Ymchwil a Datblygu Technoleg Lleferydd Speech Technology Research and Development ivan@llaisdy.com @llaisdy llaisdy.wordpress.com github.com/llaisdy www.linkedin.com/in/ivanuemlianin festina lente ============================================================ From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Tue Oct 31 10:12:08 2017 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 11:12:08 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?RndkOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J4=?= =?utf-8?q?=D1=82=D0=B2=3A_Re=3A_Object_oriented_activity_and_commu?= =?utf-8?q?nication?= In-Reply-To: References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> <630D49CF-00CD-463E-A9B1-1E2924FCE197@uniandes.edu.co> <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> <6B0A96B7-3ACE-43E8-8CFC-3AD05568269A@uniandes.edu.co> <919379338.1678471.1508585766999@mail.yahoo.com> <1508933013877.70037@iped.uio.no> <1311730113.6439834.1508973202950@mail.yahoo.com> <6e7d87e2-b3e7-5b41-1175-04c13dd1d78c@mira.net> <5EA1DF7F-AB22-4F5A-B150-6B9EB9FBA4E9@manchester.ac.uk> Message-ID: David, I'd like to resist some of the individualism and internalism implied by your notion of "privileged access". (and I suspect that this capacity presupposes "guess what I'm thinking" kinds of games, and these are WEIRD phenomena in as much as they aren't culturally universal - in some cultural contexts they are seen to be rude!). To put my concern slightly differently and into questions: 1. What exactly is it that one has "privileged access" to? 2. Are there really no times in which we can have a feeling that is someone else's? Can a child's fear not be the mother's fear? 3. Are our feelings all ours? and not of others? (Here I'm thinking of the experience of watching my children be socialized into feelings by seeing what kinds of emotional expressions lead to what kinds of practical outcomes (and here refer back to #1). But I'm also thinking of Volosinov's notion of behavioral ideology - a feeling of hunger is something different when shared by thousands of others). 4. What is inside (and privileged) and what is outside (and not?)? Anyway, that's a bit of a mess, philosophically and otherwise, but seems like questions very relevant to thinking about Vygotsky in the vein of Hegel/Marx and attempts to transcend simple dualisms of subject/object, inside/outside, individual/society, etc. Hope you are well wherever you may be and may my well-being be your well-being... -greg On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 3:35 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > I think that when your grandson feels fear, what the child feels is his > own fear and not your fear. As you point out, what is communicated is a > vague uneasiness and not urgent and immediately actionable thought "I'm > afraid that my grandson is going to electrocute himself" or even "Grandpa > is afraid that I am going to electrocute myself". I think that when Alan > Bennet's mother sees the cow, what she feels is the sensation of seeing > shapes and colors and remembering seeing such patterns in some concrete > context and not the precise location of a specifiable semantic address. So > it seems to me that Wittgenstein is confirmed and not confounded. > > Vygosky says that when a wild goose is startled and the whole flock takes > wing, we should call it "contamination' rather than "communication". What > is "communicable" here is symptom not cause. The first goose is afraid of > something and not because the other geese are afraid. The other geese are > not afraid of whatever it was that startled the first goose; they are > afraid because the first goose is afraid, and that is all. > > If you have a cold and sneeze, and I am sneezing because of the pepper on > my pickle sandwich, then I cannot say that I have caught your cold. There > is a well-known joke which makes the same point: if you scream in a > theatre, everybody tells you to shut up, but if you scream on an airplane > they all join in. In neither case, however, is there a feeling > communicated: in both cases, the only thing being communicated was the fact > of screaming, not the emotion that gave rise to it. > > It makes a difference to an undamaged human brain. Here's Dr. Adolfo Garcia > demonstrating that there are good neurological reasons why you can say "My > grandson ate breakfast" and even "My grandson felt/thought that it was time > for breakfast'" but you cannot say "My grandson ate that it was time for > breakfast". Mental processes are one thing, and material processes are > another: a human brain knows the difference, and our languages reflect this > knowledge. > > https://vimeo.com/111374335 > > Dr. Garcia has a good paper on this in Functions of Language: > > https://benjamins.com/#catalog/journals/fol.23.3.02gar/details > > If Alan Bennet's mum confirms Wittgenstein, but Alan Bennett thinks > Wittgenstein is confounded, can we really say that he has understood > Wittgenstein? if you prove my point, but you think you are actually > contradicting it, have we communicated or not? > > David Kellogg > > On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Julian Williams < > julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > > > David > > > > When I see my grandchild fall and bang their head I ?feel their pain? and > > wince even before I hear him cry? even more so, my grandson seems to feel > > my fear before I actually say anything about it (when they poke their > > finger into the socket), and even though he is too young to have any > words > > for ?fear?? when you see someone?s face twist in such and such a way, you > > mirror it and feel the sensation associated with the expression straight > > away, don?t you? > > > > At some level of perception, we do communicate without words. As Alan > > Bennet said in his diaries (when his demented mother pointed to a cow in > > the field and said ?I know what they are but not what they are called?) > > ?Thus Wittgenstein was confounded by my mother?. > > > > Am I missing your point? > > > > Julian > > > > On 26/10/2017, 11:58, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of > David > > Kellogg" > dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > All Vygotsky says is that thinking is represented in the brain > > differently > > than immediate sensation. Vygotsky didn't have access to MRI scans or > > computerized tomography. In fact these can and do distinguish between > > verbs > > of sensation and verbs of verbal report. But what Vygotsky did have > > access > > to is the grammar of reported speech. > > > > In all languages that I know, it is possible to quote the words of > > another > > person. I can say, for example: > > > > Sasha says "Obviously, this has nothing to do with Marxism". > > > > I can also quote the thoughts of another person. > > > > Sasha thinks, "Obviously, this has nothing to with Marxism." > > > > I can do this even when there are no actual words, just as I can read > > Sasha's thoughts without him speaking them. > > > > However, in no languages that Iknow is it possible to quote the > > actions or > > the immediate sensations of another person. I cannot say, for > example: > > > > "Sasha stood "Up"" > > > > "Sasha felt 'Cold'". > > > > When I try to say this, what I end up saying is that Sasha thought a > > word > > meaning, not that he felt an immediate sensation. > > > > In Chinese we say, "The speaker has gone, and the tea is cold." This > > is > > originally a line from the revolutionary opera "Shajiabang", about a > > woman > > who runs a teahouse used by communists. In this scene, the children > are > > acting out a visit by a Chinese quisling and a Japanese officer; they > > accuse the woman of communist sympathies, and she says that all > people > > who > > come to her teahouse have sympathies, but as soon as they go, their > > tea is > > cold, and she throws it out (6:13). > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUYvyRMvCNU > > > > There is no way, as Wittgenstein says, to feel the toothache of > another > > person; all you can do is to describe it in thoughts and words. > > Paradoxically, when we want to share thoughts, we can do it > > "immediately", > > because thoughts and words have already made the dialectical > leap--the > > leap > > from idiolect into a sharable dialect. > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > > > > > other verbs). First of all, notice that he is saying that > > > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > > > > That is a tendency within our heritage, David. Some people > > > take the category of "labour" rather than "activity" to be > > > the key category. > > > > > > As I understand it, "labour," or "production," is activity > > > in the case where production and consumption and socially > > > mediated, but I think that activity whose object is an > > > object of consumption should be included within the basic > > > category of Activity Theory, even if there are important > > > psychological differences. Some are also concerned to > > > separate symbolic activity, such as speech or supervision of > > > labour, from the fundamental category, giving tool-use > > > priority over sign use, and use of the term "labour" > > > suggests that. Vygotsky expressed himself firmly against > > > this move. > > > > > > So use of "activity" rather than "labour" or vice versa does > > > reflect certain tensions within the tradition. > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Tool%20and% > > > 20Sign%20in%20Vygotskys%20Development.pdf > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Andy Blunden > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > On 26/10/2017 6:14 PM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. wrote: > > > > Xmca seems to have a workerist tendency operating - for myself I > > have > > > always found that the work of generalising (in Vygotsky's sense) > is a > > > labour of object-oriented activity. But that's just me > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ > > > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Alexander Surmava > > > > Sent: 26 October 2017 00:13 > > > > To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike > > Cole; > > > ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] ???: Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > > activity > > > and communication > > > > > > > > Dear Alfredo, > > > > > > > > thank you for your very accurate reaction. You definitely noticed > > the > > > main thing. Today, in the era of globalization and developed > > technologies, > > > the class antagonism between exploited people and their exploiters, > > between > > > capital and wage labor, assumes the appearance of the opposite > > between > > > different ethnic groups and cultures. Capital itself has always > been > > a > > > global phenomenon, and a class of capitalists - a cosmopolitan > class. > > > Putting military overcoats on workers and sending them to fight and > > to kill > > > each other under nationalist slogans, they continued to cooperate > > with > > > their exploitation colleagues, somehow continuing to receive > > dividends from > > > their enterprises located on the territory of their "enemy." Today > > Putin's > > > friends and henchmen who curse the "insidious West" take their > > capitals to > > > this West, buy property there, send their children to study there > > and go > > > there themselves to rest and be treated. And today Mr. Poroshenko - > > the > > > president of the country that was subje > > > > cted to the aggression of the neighboring state, owns chocolate > > > factories located on the territory of this country. > > > > In Russia, and in Western Europe, and in the United States, the > > policy > > > of the ruling classes is based today on inciting against each other > > the > > > working people of different ethnic groups and confessions, on their > > > juxtaposition of each other as superior and second-class creatures. > > > > And as an ideological justification of the enmity incited by the > > ruling > > > class towards working people of a different skin color, working > > people > > > speaking a different language and praying to other gods, public > > > consciousness is infected with totally false ideas constructed > > allegedly on > > > a scientific basis. All this is not new. One hundred years ago, the > > > dominant ideology rested on undisguised racism. Today, the same > task > > is > > > being solved by more sophisticated means, appealing to so-called > > "cultural" > > > differences. Although the old ideology appealing to biological > > differences > > > has not disappeared. Only today it is covered by a new, > > molecular-genetic > > > argumentation, an appeal not only to livestock farming, but also to > > the > > > "psychology of culture". > > > > It is possible to unmask this bourgeois lie, not only in words > but > > also > > > in deeds, if we can understand that human development is not the > > ability of > > > individuals to experience (perejivat?) the meaning of words, but to > > be > > > genuine subjects of object-oriented activity, the subjects of > labor. > > > > If we stay on Vygotsky's theoretical positions, which believed > > that the > > > human psyche begins with acts of sensation that thinking is just a > > verbal > > > "generalization" of the material that our senses deliver to us, > then > > any > > > wretched ideologist, with a well-suspended language, will seem to > us > > the > > > owner of perfect wisdom, whereas a worker or a peasant doing his > own > > work, > > > but not possessing the skill of ideological verbosity, will look > > something > > > inferior. > > > > If someone is shocked by such an evaluation of Vygotsky's theory, > > open > > > his "Thinking and speach" and reread this key paragraph. > > > > > > > > > > > > "It has been said that the dialectical leap is not only a > > transition > > > from matter that is incapable of sensation to matter that is > capable > > of > > > sensation, but a transition from sensation to thought. This implies > > that > > > reality is reflected in consciousness in a qualitatively different > > way in > > > thinking than it is in immediate sensation. This qualitative > > difference is > > > primarily a function of a generalized reflection of reality. > > Therefore, > > > generalization in word meaning is an act of thinking in the true > > sense of > > > the word. At the same time, however, meaning is an inseparable part > > of the > > > word; it belongs not only to the domain of thought but to the > domain > > of > > > speech. A word without meaning is not a word, but an empty sound. A > > word > > > without meaning no longer belongs to the domain of speech. One > > cannot say > > > of word meaning what we said earlier of the elements of the word > > taken > > > separately. Is word meaning speech or is it thought? It is both at > > one and > > > the same time; it is a unit of verbal thi > > > > nking. It is obvious, then, that our method must be that of > > semantic > > > analysis. Our method must rely on the analysts of the meaningful > > aspect of > > > speech; it must be a method for studying verbal meaning. > > > > > > > > We can reasonably anticipate that this method will produce > answers > > to > > > our questions concerning the relationship between thinking and > speech > > > because this relationship is already contained in the unit of > > analysis. In > > > studying the function, structure, and development of this unit, we > > will > > > come to understand a great deal that is of direct relevance to the > > problem > > > of the relationship of thinking to speech and to the nature of > verbal > > > thinking." > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously, such an "understanding" of thinking has not the > > slightest > > > relation to either Spinozism or Marxism. It is a naive attempt to > > combine > > > eclectically the old ideas of empirical psychology with the school > > textbook > > > of formal logic. > > > > (Of course, I understand that this paragraph needs more detailed > > > theoretical analysis. And I will not slow down this analysis in the > > very > > > near future. In the meantime, I only note that Vygotsky's assertion > > that > > > "generalization is a verbal act of thought" is a maximally > aphoristic > > > expression of his idealistic position. For us, as for the > > materialists, the > > > generalization is a practical act and its instrument is the > > instrument of > > > labor. And the initial and universal instrument of generalization > is > > not a > > > sign, but an instrument of labor. So the ax is a means of > > generalizing the > > > properties of wood. The ax is, in the same time, a means of > > analyzing all > > > the same wood. All this is obvious, looking through the optics of > > > Spinoza-Ilyenkov, that is, simply a Marxist definition of > ideality.) > > > Theoretical conclusions made by Vygotsky from the results of > Luria's > > trip > > > to Uzbekistan logically follow from the above. The Uzbek illiterate > > > peasant, not from school textbooks, but from his own labo > > > > r experience knowing how the earth, aryk, water, hoe and melon > are > > > connected, and therefore refusing to produce meaningless formal > > logical > > > operations with words denoting these things, is declared a > primitive > > > thinking by "complexes". Simultaneously, any school crap who knows > > how to > > > pronounce definitions from his textbook and familiar with the melon > > only > > > when it is bought, washed and cut by his mommy, is declared the > > bearer of > > > scientific consciousness. > > > > > > > > Only in this way can we, as psychologists and teachers, come to > the > > > value of instruments of labor, not only for the distribution of > > material > > > wealth, but also for the distribution of the spiritual wealth, for > > the > > > distribution of the ability to think, for the distribution of > > culture. Only > > > in this way can we approach the Marxist definition of culture as > the > > > totality of the means of its object-oriented activity accumulated > by > > > humankind the means of its labor. Only on the path of such based on > > idea of > > > object-oriented activity understanding of man we will be able to > get > > out of > > > the deadlock of the semiotic, with its symbolic arbitrariness. > > > > Vygotsky's merit is that he was the first who seriously set the > > task of > > > creating a Marxist psychology and his merit can be considered that > > the > > > first real step in this direction was made by his friend and > student > > AN > > > Leontiev.Our task is to continue their mission. > > > > Sasha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ??: Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > > ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >; > > > Mike Cole ; ivan-dgf ; > > Martin > > > John Packer ; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? < > > > haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>; Alexander Surmava < > > > alexander.surmava@yahoo.com> > > > > ??????????: ?????, 25 ??????? 2017 15:03 > > > > ????: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity > > and > > > communication > > > > > > > > #yiv0081188988 #yiv0081188988 -- P {margin-top:0px;margin-bottom: > > 0px;}#yiv0081188988 > > > Dear Sasha, all, > > > > > > > > apologies for late response, as we've had some health issues at > > home > > > that fortunately are now dissipating but which have limited > > participation > > > anywhere else than home life. > > > > > > > > The real need of democratic pedagogy. That sounds like a concrete > > aspect > > > to begin moving on to what we had hoped at the beginning of this > > > conversation: how is this all gonna be of practical (real) > relevance > > to us > > > and not only armchair discussion. So, in what sense is this 'real,' > > and is > > > this a 'need'? (I am not addressing Sasha alone, I am addressing > any > > and > > > everyone) > > > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > > > > > From: Alexander Surmava > > > > Sent: 21 October 2017 13:36 > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole; Alfredo Jornet > > Gil; > > > ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? > > > > Subject: ???: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > > activity > > > and communication Dear Martin,I think that if we're going to > discuss > > the > > > method of Marx, then it is better to do it discussing his most > > mature work. > > > That is evidently "Das Kapital" and Ilyenkov's monograph > "Dialectics > > of the > > > abstract and concrete in theoretical thinking". I am aware that > > there is a > > > point of view that the position of Marx as a humanist was > adequately > > > presented in Gr?ndrisse, whereas the humanistic core of Marx's > > theory was > > > allegedly lost in ?Das Kapital?. Accordingly, Marxism is better to > > study > > > with the help of Gr?ndrisse, and not with the help of ?Das > Kapital?. > > Along > > > with Ilyenkov I do not share this view.I'm afraid that the > > discussion of > > > this topic would take us too far from our psychological themes. I > > think > > > that we should not get stuck in discussing the order of "steps", > but > > > immediately put our foot on the first "step" so that after that try > > to rise > > > from it to the seco > > > > nd, and so on ... Taking into account my not young age, it seems > > to me > > > that at least for me, it's time to move on from the discussion of > the > > > method to the discussion of the subject, from the preparation to > > thinking, > > > to the thinking as such. Especially because the Method can not be > > studied > > > before and regardless of the study of the very subject. Perhaps > this > > seems > > > paradoxical, but it is a paradox only for those who are not > familiar > > with > > > the dialectic of Spinoza and Marx. Meanwhile, instead of discussing > > the > > > question - what is activity, or what is the psyche - we continue to > > carry > > > water in a sieve, discussing the singular or plural of the term > > activity. > > > Without a doubt, this topic is very useful for translators from > > Russian (or > > > German) language to English, but theoretically it is not very > > informative. > > > And besides, we are convinced that Andy Blunden completely > exhausted > > this > > > topic a few years ago. Much more interesting would be to discuss > the > > > question: what is the justificati > > > > on to declare Vygotsky the founder of activity theory. Where, in > > any > > > > of his works, Vygotsky introduces the concept of activity, not > > just uses > > > the term ?activity? in the theoretical contexts in which it is used > > > habitually by idealistic psychology. ?The activity (or activities) > of > > > consciousness?, ?the activity (or activities) of mental functions?, > > ?speech > > > activity (or activities)?, the concrete activities of the > > personality?- all > > > this has nothing to do with object-oriented activity, with Spinoza > > and > > > Marx. It seems to me that our main mistake is that we are > discussing > > the > > > subtleties of understanding the categories of activity by Vygotsky > > and > > > Leontyev, whereas we need something different. It is necessary to > > try to > > > formulate OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of the activity, proceeding from > THE > > REAL > > > NEED OF THE PRACTICE OF DEMOCRATIC PEDAGOGY.It is impossible to > > understand > > > activity based on Vygotsky's ideas, because there was no such > > theoretical > > > category in his theoretical system of views. AN Leontiev > introduces a > > > category of object-oriented a > > > > ctivity into psychology, but his theory is of little use for > > solving > > > practical problems too, for saying ?A?, Leontyev never said ?B?. > > Having > > > proposed the principle of activity as the universal basis of the > > > psychological theory, its germ cell AN Leontiev did not go further > > failing > > > to concretize this correctly chosen abstract category.Once again, > > from > > > thehobby group of lovers of Vygotsky, with his "?ultural-?istorical > > > Psychology" and AN Leontyev with his "Psychological Theory of > > Activity" we > > > all have to become community of researchers developing > fundamentally > > new > > > approaches to education, based on dialectical, revolutionary method > > of > > > Marx.For the realization of this dream, it is necessary to begin > not > > so > > > much - to learn to listen to each other... :-)Sincerely,Sasha > > > > > > > > ??: Martin John Packer > > > > ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> > > > > ??????????: ???????, 20 ??????? 2017 3:08 > > > > ????: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity and > > > communication > > > > > > > > Right, Marx was himself well aware of this difference. My point > is > > that > > > we have begin to talk about ?the start? of Marx?s analysis, and > > about its > > > ?stages,? but these should not be equated with the order of the > > treatment > > > in Capital. > > > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden > > > nden@mira.net>> wrote: > > > > > > > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm > > > > > > > > Of course the method of presentation must differ in form > > > > from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the > > > > material in detail, to analyse its different forms of > > > > development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only > > > > after this work is done, can the actual movement be > > > > adequately described. If this is done successfully, if > > > > the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as > > > > in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a > > > > mere a priori construction. > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Andy Blunden > > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > > On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > > > > Seems to me that if we?re going to talk about the details of > Marx?s > > > analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. The > > two have > > > virtually opposite organizations; it?s clear that the order of > > presentation > > > in Capital was not the order of analysis. > > > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Tue Oct 31 13:36:33 2017 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 14:36:33 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?RndkOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J4=?= =?utf-8?q?=D1=82=D0=B2=3A_Re=3A_Object_oriented_activity_and_commu?= =?utf-8?q?nication?= In-Reply-To: References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> <630D49CF-00CD-463E-A9B1-1E2924FCE197@uniandes.edu.co> <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> <6B0A96B7-3ACE-43E8-8CFC-3AD05568269A@uniandes.edu.co> <919379338.1678471.1508585766999@mail.yahoo.com> <1508933013877.70037@iped.uio.no> <1311730113.6439834.1508973202950@mail.yahoo.com> <6e7d87e2-b3e7-5b41-1175-04c13dd1d78c@mira.net> <5EA1DF7F-AB22-4F5A-B150-6B9EB9FBA4E9@manchester.ac.uk> Message-ID: and for those curious about Volosinov, here is a great review of one of Volosinov's works, Marxism and the Philosophy of Language (it happens to be the one that I was referring to with the mention of hunger): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00210.x/full -greg On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: > David, > > I'd like to resist some of the individualism and internalism implied by > your notion of "privileged access". (and I suspect that this capacity > presupposes "guess what I'm thinking" kinds of games, and these are WEIRD > phenomena in as much as they aren't culturally universal - in some cultural > contexts they are seen to be rude!). > > To put my concern slightly differently and into questions: > 1. What exactly is it that one has "privileged access" to? > 2. Are there really no times in which we can have a feeling that is > someone else's? Can a child's fear not be the mother's fear? > 3. Are our feelings all ours? and not of others? (Here I'm thinking of the > experience of watching my children be socialized into feelings by seeing > what kinds of emotional expressions lead to what kinds of practical > outcomes (and here refer back to #1). But I'm also thinking of Volosinov's > notion of behavioral ideology - a feeling of hunger is something different > when shared by thousands of others). > 4. What is inside (and privileged) and what is outside (and not?)? > > Anyway, that's a bit of a mess, philosophically and otherwise, but seems > like questions very relevant to thinking about Vygotsky in the vein of > Hegel/Marx and attempts to transcend simple dualisms of subject/object, > inside/outside, individual/society, etc. > > Hope you are well wherever you may be > and may my well-being be your well-being... > > -greg > > > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 3:35 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > >> I think that when your grandson feels fear, what the child feels is his >> own fear and not your fear. As you point out, what is communicated is a >> vague uneasiness and not urgent and immediately actionable thought "I'm >> afraid that my grandson is going to electrocute himself" or even "Grandpa >> is afraid that I am going to electrocute myself". I think that when Alan >> Bennet's mother sees the cow, what she feels is the sensation of seeing >> shapes and colors and remembering seeing such patterns in some concrete >> context and not the precise location of a specifiable semantic address. So >> it seems to me that Wittgenstein is confirmed and not confounded. >> >> Vygosky says that when a wild goose is startled and the whole flock takes >> wing, we should call it "contamination' rather than "communication". What >> is "communicable" here is symptom not cause. The first goose is afraid of >> something and not because the other geese are afraid. The other geese are >> not afraid of whatever it was that startled the first goose; they are >> afraid because the first goose is afraid, and that is all. >> >> If you have a cold and sneeze, and I am sneezing because of the pepper on >> my pickle sandwich, then I cannot say that I have caught your cold. There >> is a well-known joke which makes the same point: if you scream in a >> theatre, everybody tells you to shut up, but if you scream on an airplane >> they all join in. In neither case, however, is there a feeling >> communicated: in both cases, the only thing being communicated was the >> fact >> of screaming, not the emotion that gave rise to it. >> >> It makes a difference to an undamaged human brain. Here's Dr. Adolfo >> Garcia >> demonstrating that there are good neurological reasons why you can say "My >> grandson ate breakfast" and even "My grandson felt/thought that it was >> time >> for breakfast'" but you cannot say "My grandson ate that it was time for >> breakfast". Mental processes are one thing, and material processes are >> another: a human brain knows the difference, and our languages reflect >> this >> knowledge. >> >> https://vimeo.com/111374335 >> >> Dr. Garcia has a good paper on this in Functions of Language: >> >> https://benjamins.com/#catalog/journals/fol.23.3.02gar/details >> >> If Alan Bennet's mum confirms Wittgenstein, but Alan Bennett thinks >> Wittgenstein is confounded, can we really say that he has understood >> Wittgenstein? if you prove my point, but you think you are actually >> contradicting it, have we communicated or not? >> >> David Kellogg >> >> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Julian Williams < >> julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> > David >> > >> > When I see my grandchild fall and bang their head I ?feel their pain? >> and >> > wince even before I hear him cry? even more so, my grandson seems to >> feel >> > my fear before I actually say anything about it (when they poke their >> > finger into the socket), and even though he is too young to have any >> words >> > for ?fear?? when you see someone?s face twist in such and such a way, >> you >> > mirror it and feel the sensation associated with the expression straight >> > away, don?t you? >> > >> > At some level of perception, we do communicate without words. As Alan >> > Bennet said in his diaries (when his demented mother pointed to a cow in >> > the field and said ?I know what they are but not what they are called?) >> > ?Thus Wittgenstein was confounded by my mother?. >> > >> > Am I missing your point? >> > >> > Julian >> > >> > On 26/10/2017, 11:58, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of >> David >> > Kellogg" > > dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > All Vygotsky says is that thinking is represented in the brain >> > differently >> > than immediate sensation. Vygotsky didn't have access to MRI scans >> or >> > computerized tomography. In fact these can and do distinguish >> between >> > verbs >> > of sensation and verbs of verbal report. But what Vygotsky did have >> > access >> > to is the grammar of reported speech. >> > >> > In all languages that I know, it is possible to quote the words of >> > another >> > person. I can say, for example: >> > >> > Sasha says "Obviously, this has nothing to do with Marxism". >> > >> > I can also quote the thoughts of another person. >> > >> > Sasha thinks, "Obviously, this has nothing to with Marxism." >> > >> > I can do this even when there are no actual words, just as I can >> read >> > Sasha's thoughts without him speaking them. >> > >> > However, in no languages that Iknow is it possible to quote the >> > actions or >> > the immediate sensations of another person. I cannot say, for >> example: >> > >> > "Sasha stood "Up"" >> > >> > "Sasha felt 'Cold'". >> > >> > When I try to say this, what I end up saying is that Sasha thought a >> > word >> > meaning, not that he felt an immediate sensation. >> > >> > In Chinese we say, "The speaker has gone, and the tea is cold." >> This >> > is >> > originally a line from the revolutionary opera "Shajiabang", about a >> > woman >> > who runs a teahouse used by communists. In this scene, the children >> are >> > acting out a visit by a Chinese quisling and a Japanese officer; >> they >> > accuse the woman of communist sympathies, and she says that all >> people >> > who >> > come to her teahouse have sympathies, but as soon as they go, their >> > tea is >> > cold, and she throws it out (6:13). >> > >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUYvyRMvCNU >> > >> > There is no way, as Wittgenstein says, to feel the toothache of >> another >> > person; all you can do is to describe it in thoughts and words. >> > Paradoxically, when we want to share thoughts, we can do it >> > "immediately", >> > because thoughts and words have already made the dialectical >> leap--the >> > leap >> > from idiolect into a sharable dialect. >> > >> > David Kellogg >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > other verbs). First of all, notice that he is saying that >> > >> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Andy Blunden >> > wrote: >> > >> > > That is a tendency within our heritage, David. Some people >> > > take the category of "labour" rather than "activity" to be >> > > the key category. >> > > >> > > As I understand it, "labour," or "production," is activity >> > > in the case where production and consumption and socially >> > > mediated, but I think that activity whose object is an >> > > object of consumption should be included within the basic >> > > category of Activity Theory, even if there are important >> > > psychological differences. Some are also concerned to >> > > separate symbolic activity, such as speech or supervision of >> > > labour, from the fundamental category, giving tool-use >> > > priority over sign use, and use of the term "labour" >> > > suggests that. Vygotsky expressed himself firmly against >> > > this move. >> > > >> > > So use of "activity" rather than "labour" or vice versa does >> > > reflect certain tensions within the tradition. >> > > >> > > Andy >> > > >> > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Tool%20and% >> > > 20Sign%20in%20Vygotskys%20Development.pdf >> > > >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ >> > > Andy Blunden >> > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> > > On 26/10/2017 6:14 PM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. wrote: >> > > > Xmca seems to have a workerist tendency operating - for myself I >> > have >> > > always found that the work of generalising (in Vygotsky's sense) >> is a >> > > labour of object-oriented activity. But that's just me >> > > > >> > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ >> > > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Alexander Surmava >> > > > Sent: 26 October 2017 00:13 >> > > > To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike >> > Cole; >> > > ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? >> > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] ???: Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented >> > activity >> > > and communication >> > > > >> > > > Dear Alfredo, >> > > > >> > > > thank you for your very accurate reaction. You definitely >> noticed >> > the >> > > main thing. Today, in the era of globalization and developed >> > technologies, >> > > the class antagonism between exploited people and their >> exploiters, >> > between >> > > capital and wage labor, assumes the appearance of the opposite >> > between >> > > different ethnic groups and cultures. Capital itself has always >> been >> > a >> > > global phenomenon, and a class of capitalists - a cosmopolitan >> class. >> > > Putting military overcoats on workers and sending them to fight >> and >> > to kill >> > > each other under nationalist slogans, they continued to cooperate >> > with >> > > their exploitation colleagues, somehow continuing to receive >> > dividends from >> > > their enterprises located on the territory of their "enemy." Today >> > Putin's >> > > friends and henchmen who curse the "insidious West" take their >> > capitals to >> > > this West, buy property there, send their children to study there >> > and go >> > > there themselves to rest and be treated. And today Mr. Poroshenko >> - >> > the >> > > president of the country that was subje >> > > > cted to the aggression of the neighboring state, owns chocolate >> > > factories located on the territory of this country. >> > > > In Russia, and in Western Europe, and in the United States, the >> > policy >> > > of the ruling classes is based today on inciting against each >> other >> > the >> > > working people of different ethnic groups and confessions, on >> their >> > > juxtaposition of each other as superior and second-class >> creatures. >> > > > And as an ideological justification of the enmity incited by the >> > ruling >> > > class towards working people of a different skin color, working >> > people >> > > speaking a different language and praying to other gods, public >> > > consciousness is infected with totally false ideas constructed >> > allegedly on >> > > a scientific basis. All this is not new. One hundred years ago, >> the >> > > dominant ideology rested on undisguised racism. Today, the same >> task >> > is >> > > being solved by more sophisticated means, appealing to so-called >> > "cultural" >> > > differences. Although the old ideology appealing to biological >> > differences >> > > has not disappeared. Only today it is covered by a new, >> > molecular-genetic >> > > argumentation, an appeal not only to livestock farming, but also >> to >> > the >> > > "psychology of culture". >> > > > It is possible to unmask this bourgeois lie, not only in words >> but >> > also >> > > in deeds, if we can understand that human development is not the >> > ability of >> > > individuals to experience (perejivat?) the meaning of words, but >> to >> > be >> > > genuine subjects of object-oriented activity, the subjects of >> labor. >> > > > If we stay on Vygotsky's theoretical positions, which believed >> > that the >> > > human psyche begins with acts of sensation that thinking is just a >> > verbal >> > > "generalization" of the material that our senses deliver to us, >> then >> > any >> > > wretched ideologist, with a well-suspended language, will seem to >> us >> > the >> > > owner of perfect wisdom, whereas a worker or a peasant doing his >> own >> > work, >> > > but not possessing the skill of ideological verbosity, will look >> > something >> > > inferior. >> > > > If someone is shocked by such an evaluation of Vygotsky's >> theory, >> > open >> > > his "Thinking and speach" and reread this key paragraph. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > "It has been said that the dialectical leap is not only a >> > transition >> > > from matter that is incapable of sensation to matter that is >> capable >> > of >> > > sensation, but a transition from sensation to thought. This >> implies >> > that >> > > reality is reflected in consciousness in a qualitatively different >> > way in >> > > thinking than it is in immediate sensation. This qualitative >> > difference is >> > > primarily a function of a generalized reflection of reality. >> > Therefore, >> > > generalization in word meaning is an act of thinking in the true >> > sense of >> > > the word. At the same time, however, meaning is an inseparable >> part >> > of the >> > > word; it belongs not only to the domain of thought but to the >> domain >> > of >> > > speech. A word without meaning is not a word, but an empty sound. >> A >> > word >> > > without meaning no longer belongs to the domain of speech. One >> > cannot say >> > > of word meaning what we said earlier of the elements of the word >> > taken >> > > separately. Is word meaning speech or is it thought? It is both at >> > one and >> > > the same time; it is a unit of verbal thi >> > > > nking. It is obvious, then, that our method must be that of >> > semantic >> > > analysis. Our method must rely on the analysts of the meaningful >> > aspect of >> > > speech; it must be a method for studying verbal meaning. >> > > > >> > > > We can reasonably anticipate that this method will produce >> answers >> > to >> > > our questions concerning the relationship between thinking and >> speech >> > > because this relationship is already contained in the unit of >> > analysis. In >> > > studying the function, structure, and development of this unit, we >> > will >> > > come to understand a great deal that is of direct relevance to the >> > problem >> > > of the relationship of thinking to speech and to the nature of >> verbal >> > > thinking." >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Obviously, such an "understanding" of thinking has not the >> > slightest >> > > relation to either Spinozism or Marxism. It is a naive attempt to >> > combine >> > > eclectically the old ideas of empirical psychology with the school >> > textbook >> > > of formal logic. >> > > > (Of course, I understand that this paragraph needs more detailed >> > > theoretical analysis. And I will not slow down this analysis in >> the >> > very >> > > near future. In the meantime, I only note that Vygotsky's >> assertion >> > that >> > > "generalization is a verbal act of thought" is a maximally >> aphoristic >> > > expression of his idealistic position. For us, as for the >> > materialists, the >> > > generalization is a practical act and its instrument is the >> > instrument of >> > > labor. And the initial and universal instrument of generalization >> is >> > not a >> > > sign, but an instrument of labor. So the ax is a means of >> > generalizing the >> > > properties of wood. The ax is, in the same time, a means of >> > analyzing all >> > > the same wood. All this is obvious, looking through the optics of >> > > Spinoza-Ilyenkov, that is, simply a Marxist definition of >> ideality.) >> > > Theoretical conclusions made by Vygotsky from the results of >> Luria's >> > trip >> > > to Uzbekistan logically follow from the above. The Uzbek >> illiterate >> > > peasant, not from school textbooks, but from his own labo >> > > > r experience knowing how the earth, aryk, water, hoe and melon >> are >> > > connected, and therefore refusing to produce meaningless formal >> > logical >> > > operations with words denoting these things, is declared a >> primitive >> > > thinking by "complexes". Simultaneously, any school crap who knows >> > how to >> > > pronounce definitions from his textbook and familiar with the >> melon >> > only >> > > when it is bought, washed and cut by his mommy, is declared the >> > bearer of >> > > scientific consciousness. >> > > > >> > > > Only in this way can we, as psychologists and teachers, come to >> the >> > > value of instruments of labor, not only for the distribution of >> > material >> > > wealth, but also for the distribution of the spiritual wealth, for >> > the >> > > distribution of the ability to think, for the distribution of >> > culture. Only >> > > in this way can we approach the Marxist definition of culture as >> the >> > > totality of the means of its object-oriented activity accumulated >> by >> > > humankind the means of its labor. Only on the path of such based >> on >> > idea of >> > > object-oriented activity understanding of man we will be able to >> get >> > out of >> > > the deadlock of the semiotic, with its symbolic arbitrariness. >> > > > Vygotsky's merit is that he was the first who seriously set the >> > task of >> > > creating a Marxist psychology and his merit can be considered that >> > the >> > > first real step in this direction was made by his friend and >> student >> > AN >> > > Leontiev.Our task is to continue their mission. >> > > > Sasha >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > ??: Alfredo Jornet Gil >> > > > ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >> > >; >> > > Mike Cole ; ivan-dgf ; >> > Martin >> > > John Packer ; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? < >> > > haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>; Alexander Surmava < >> > > alexander.surmava@yahoo.com> >> > > > ??????????: ?????, 25 ??????? 2017 15:03 >> > > > ????: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented >> activity >> > and >> > > communication >> > > > >> > > > #yiv0081188988 #yiv0081188988 -- P >> {margin-top:0px;margin-bottom: >> > 0px;}#yiv0081188988 >> > > Dear Sasha, all, >> > > > >> > > > apologies for late response, as we've had some health issues at >> > home >> > > that fortunately are now dissipating but which have limited >> > participation >> > > anywhere else than home life. >> > > > >> > > > The real need of democratic pedagogy. That sounds like a >> concrete >> > aspect >> > > to begin moving on to what we had hoped at the beginning of this >> > > conversation: how is this all gonna be of practical (real) >> relevance >> > to us >> > > and not only armchair discussion. So, in what sense is this >> 'real,' >> > and is >> > > this a 'need'? (I am not addressing Sasha alone, I am addressing >> any >> > and >> > > everyone) >> > > > >> > > > Alfredo >> > > > >> > > > From: Alexander Surmava >> > > > Sent: 21 October 2017 13:36 >> > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole; Alfredo Jornet >> > Gil; >> > > ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? >> > > > Subject: ???: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented >> > activity >> > > and communication Dear Martin,I think that if we're going to >> discuss >> > the >> > > method of Marx, then it is better to do it discussing his most >> > mature work. >> > > That is evidently "Das Kapital" and Ilyenkov's monograph >> "Dialectics >> > of the >> > > abstract and concrete in theoretical thinking". I am aware that >> > there is a >> > > point of view that the position of Marx as a humanist was >> adequately >> > > presented in Gr?ndrisse, whereas the humanistic core of Marx's >> > theory was >> > > allegedly lost in ?Das Kapital?. Accordingly, Marxism is better to >> > study >> > > with the help of Gr?ndrisse, and not with the help of ?Das >> Kapital?. >> > Along >> > > with Ilyenkov I do not share this view.I'm afraid that the >> > discussion of >> > > this topic would take us too far from our psychological themes. I >> > think >> > > that we should not get stuck in discussing the order of "steps", >> but >> > > immediately put our foot on the first "step" so that after that >> try >> > to rise >> > > from it to the seco >> > > > nd, and so on ... Taking into account my not young age, it >> seems >> > to me >> > > that at least for me, it's time to move on from the discussion of >> the >> > > method to the discussion of the subject, from the preparation to >> > thinking, >> > > to the thinking as such. Especially because the Method can not be >> > studied >> > > before and regardless of the study of the very subject. Perhaps >> this >> > seems >> > > paradoxical, but it is a paradox only for those who are not >> familiar >> > with >> > > the dialectic of Spinoza and Marx. Meanwhile, instead of >> discussing >> > the >> > > question - what is activity, or what is the psyche - we continue >> to >> > carry >> > > water in a sieve, discussing the singular or plural of the term >> > activity. >> > > Without a doubt, this topic is very useful for translators from >> > Russian (or >> > > German) language to English, but theoretically it is not very >> > informative. >> > > And besides, we are convinced that Andy Blunden completely >> exhausted >> > this >> > > topic a few years ago. Much more interesting would be to discuss >> the >> > > question: what is the justificati >> > > > on to declare Vygotsky the founder of activity theory. Where, >> in >> > any >> > > > of his works, Vygotsky introduces the concept of activity, not >> > just uses >> > > the term ?activity? in the theoretical contexts in which it is >> used >> > > habitually by idealistic psychology. ?The activity (or >> activities) of >> > > consciousness?, ?the activity (or activities) of mental >> functions?, >> > ?speech >> > > activity (or activities)?, the concrete activities of the >> > personality?- all >> > > this has nothing to do with object-oriented activity, with Spinoza >> > and >> > > Marx. It seems to me that our main mistake is that we are >> discussing >> > the >> > > subtleties of understanding the categories of activity by Vygotsky >> > and >> > > Leontyev, whereas we need something different. It is necessary to >> > try to >> > > formulate OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of the activity, proceeding from >> THE >> > REAL >> > > NEED OF THE PRACTICE OF DEMOCRATIC PEDAGOGY.It is impossible to >> > understand >> > > activity based on Vygotsky's ideas, because there was no such >> > theoretical >> > > category in his theoretical system of views. AN Leontiev >> introduces a >> > > category of object-oriented a >> > > > ctivity into psychology, but his theory is of little use for >> > solving >> > > practical problems too, for saying ?A?, Leontyev never said ?B?. >> > Having >> > > proposed the principle of activity as the universal basis of the >> > > psychological theory, its germ cell AN Leontiev did not go further >> > failing >> > > to concretize this correctly chosen abstract category.Once again, >> > from >> > > thehobby group of lovers of Vygotsky, with his >> "?ultural-?istorical >> > > Psychology" and AN Leontyev with his "Psychological Theory of >> > Activity" we >> > > all have to become community of researchers developing >> fundamentally >> > new >> > > approaches to education, based on dialectical, revolutionary >> method >> > of >> > > Marx.For the realization of this dream, it is necessary to begin >> not >> > so >> > > much - to learn to listen to each other... :-)Sincerely,Sasha >> > > > >> > > > ??: Martin John Packer >> > > > ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> >> > > > ??????????: ???????, 20 ??????? 2017 3:08 >> > > > ????: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity >> and >> > > communication >> > > > >> > > > Right, Marx was himself well aware of this difference. My point >> is >> > that >> > > we have begin to talk about ?the start? of Marx?s analysis, and >> > about its >> > > ?stages,? but these should not be equated with the order of the >> > treatment >> > > in Capital. >> > > > >> > > > Martin >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden > > > > > nden@mira.net>> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm >> > > > >> > > > Of course the method of presentation must differ in form >> > > > from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the >> > > > material in detail, to analyse its different forms of >> > > > development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only >> > > > after this work is done, can the actual movement be >> > > > adequately described. If this is done successfully, if >> > > > the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as >> > > > in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a >> > > > mere a priori construction. >> > > > >> > > > Andy >> > > > >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ >> > > > Andy Blunden >> > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm >> > > > On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: >> > > > Seems to me that if we?re going to talk about the details of >> Marx?s >> > > analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. The >> > two have >> > > virtually opposite organizations; it?s clear that the order of >> > presentation >> > > in Capital was not the order of analysis. >> > > > >> > > > Martin >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From jamesma320@gmail.com Tue Oct 31 14:50:52 2017 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 21:50:52 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?RndkOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J4=?= =?utf-8?q?=D1=82=D0=B2=3A_Re=3A_Object_oriented_activity_and_commu?= =?utf-8?q?nication?= In-Reply-To: References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> <630D49CF-00CD-463E-A9B1-1E2924FCE197@uniandes.edu.co> <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> <6B0A96B7-3ACE-43E8-8CFC-3AD05568269A@uniandes.edu.co> <919379338.1678471.1508585766999@mail.yahoo.com> <1508933013877.70037@iped.uio.no> <1311730113.6439834.1508973202950@mail.yahoo.com> <6e7d87e2-b3e7-5b41-1175-04c13dd1d78c@mira.net> <5EA1DF7F-AB22-4F5A-B150-6B9EB9FBA4E9@manchester.ac.uk> Message-ID: I'm inclined to think Volosinov's inner sign resembles privileged access - both are located within oneself, inaccessible for other people. James On 31 October 2017 at 20:36, Greg Thompson wrote: > and for those curious about Volosinov, here is a great review of one of > Volosinov's works, Marxism and the Philosophy of Language (it happens to be > the one that I was referring to with the mention of hunger): > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00210.x/full > > -greg > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Greg Thompson > > wrote: > > > David, > > > > I'd like to resist some of the individualism and internalism implied by > > your notion of "privileged access". (and I suspect that this capacity > > presupposes "guess what I'm thinking" kinds of games, and these are WEIRD > > phenomena in as much as they aren't culturally universal - in some > cultural > > contexts they are seen to be rude!). > > > > To put my concern slightly differently and into questions: > > 1. What exactly is it that one has "privileged access" to? > > 2. Are there really no times in which we can have a feeling that is > > someone else's? Can a child's fear not be the mother's fear? > > 3. Are our feelings all ours? and not of others? (Here I'm thinking of > the > > experience of watching my children be socialized into feelings by seeing > > what kinds of emotional expressions lead to what kinds of practical > > outcomes (and here refer back to #1). But I'm also thinking of > Volosinov's > > notion of behavioral ideology - a feeling of hunger is something > different > > when shared by thousands of others). > > 4. What is inside (and privileged) and what is outside (and not?)? > > > > Anyway, that's a bit of a mess, philosophically and otherwise, but seems > > like questions very relevant to thinking about Vygotsky in the vein of > > Hegel/Marx and attempts to transcend simple dualisms of subject/object, > > inside/outside, individual/society, etc. > > > > Hope you are well wherever you may be > > and may my well-being be your well-being... > > > > -greg > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 3:35 PM, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > >> I think that when your grandson feels fear, what the child feels is his > >> own fear and not your fear. As you point out, what is communicated is a > >> vague uneasiness and not urgent and immediately actionable thought "I'm > >> afraid that my grandson is going to electrocute himself" or even > "Grandpa > >> is afraid that I am going to electrocute myself". I think that when > Alan > >> Bennet's mother sees the cow, what she feels is the sensation of seeing > >> shapes and colors and remembering seeing such patterns in some concrete > >> context and not the precise location of a specifiable semantic address. > So > >> it seems to me that Wittgenstein is confirmed and not confounded. > >> > >> Vygosky says that when a wild goose is startled and the whole flock > takes > >> wing, we should call it "contamination' rather than "communication". > What > >> is "communicable" here is symptom not cause. The first goose is afraid > of > >> something and not because the other geese are afraid. The other geese > are > >> not afraid of whatever it was that startled the first goose; they are > >> afraid because the first goose is afraid, and that is all. > >> > >> If you have a cold and sneeze, and I am sneezing because of the pepper > on > >> my pickle sandwich, then I cannot say that I have caught your cold. > There > >> is a well-known joke which makes the same point: if you scream in a > >> theatre, everybody tells you to shut up, but if you scream on an > airplane > >> they all join in. In neither case, however, is there a feeling > >> communicated: in both cases, the only thing being communicated was the > >> fact > >> of screaming, not the emotion that gave rise to it. > >> > >> It makes a difference to an undamaged human brain. Here's Dr. Adolfo > >> Garcia > >> demonstrating that there are good neurological reasons why you can say > "My > >> grandson ate breakfast" and even "My grandson felt/thought that it was > >> time > >> for breakfast'" but you cannot say "My grandson ate that it was time for > >> breakfast". Mental processes are one thing, and material processes are > >> another: a human brain knows the difference, and our languages reflect > >> this > >> knowledge. > >> > >> https://vimeo.com/111374335 > >> > >> Dr. Garcia has a good paper on this in Functions of Language: > >> > >> https://benjamins.com/#catalog/journals/fol.23.3.02gar/details > >> > >> If Alan Bennet's mum confirms Wittgenstein, but Alan Bennett thinks > >> Wittgenstein is confounded, can we really say that he has understood > >> Wittgenstein? if you prove my point, but you think you are actually > >> contradicting it, have we communicated or not? > >> > >> David Kellogg > >> > >> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Julian Williams < > >> julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > >> > >> > David > >> > > >> > When I see my grandchild fall and bang their head I ?feel their pain? > >> and > >> > wince even before I hear him cry? even more so, my grandson seems to > >> feel > >> > my fear before I actually say anything about it (when they poke their > >> > finger into the socket), and even though he is too young to have any > >> words > >> > for ?fear?? when you see someone?s face twist in such and such a way, > >> you > >> > mirror it and feel the sensation associated with the expression > straight > >> > away, don?t you? > >> > > >> > At some level of perception, we do communicate without words. As Alan > >> > Bennet said in his diaries (when his demented mother pointed to a cow > in > >> > the field and said ?I know what they are but not what they are > called?) > >> > ?Thus Wittgenstein was confounded by my mother?. > >> > > >> > Am I missing your point? > >> > > >> > Julian > >> > > >> > On 26/10/2017, 11:58, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of > >> David > >> > Kellogg" >> > dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > All Vygotsky says is that thinking is represented in the brain > >> > differently > >> > than immediate sensation. Vygotsky didn't have access to MRI scans > >> or > >> > computerized tomography. In fact these can and do distinguish > >> between > >> > verbs > >> > of sensation and verbs of verbal report. But what Vygotsky did > have > >> > access > >> > to is the grammar of reported speech. > >> > > >> > In all languages that I know, it is possible to quote the words of > >> > another > >> > person. I can say, for example: > >> > > >> > Sasha says "Obviously, this has nothing to do with Marxism". > >> > > >> > I can also quote the thoughts of another person. > >> > > >> > Sasha thinks, "Obviously, this has nothing to with Marxism." > >> > > >> > I can do this even when there are no actual words, just as I can > >> read > >> > Sasha's thoughts without him speaking them. > >> > > >> > However, in no languages that Iknow is it possible to quote the > >> > actions or > >> > the immediate sensations of another person. I cannot say, for > >> example: > >> > > >> > "Sasha stood "Up"" > >> > > >> > "Sasha felt 'Cold'". > >> > > >> > When I try to say this, what I end up saying is that Sasha > thought a > >> > word > >> > meaning, not that he felt an immediate sensation. > >> > > >> > In Chinese we say, "The speaker has gone, and the tea is cold." > >> This > >> > is > >> > originally a line from the revolutionary opera "Shajiabang", > about a > >> > woman > >> > who runs a teahouse used by communists. In this scene, the > children > >> are > >> > acting out a visit by a Chinese quisling and a Japanese officer; > >> they > >> > accuse the woman of communist sympathies, and she says that all > >> people > >> > who > >> > come to her teahouse have sympathies, but as soon as they go, > their > >> > tea is > >> > cold, and she throws it out (6:13). > >> > > >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUYvyRMvCNU > >> > > >> > There is no way, as Wittgenstein says, to feel the toothache of > >> another > >> > person; all you can do is to describe it in thoughts and words. > >> > Paradoxically, when we want to share thoughts, we can do it > >> > "immediately", > >> > because thoughts and words have already made the dialectical > >> leap--the > >> > leap > >> > from idiolect into a sharable dialect. > >> > > >> > David Kellogg > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > other verbs). First of all, notice that he is saying that > >> > > >> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Andy Blunden > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > That is a tendency within our heritage, David. Some people > >> > > take the category of "labour" rather than "activity" to be > >> > > the key category. > >> > > > >> > > As I understand it, "labour," or "production," is activity > >> > > in the case where production and consumption and socially > >> > > mediated, but I think that activity whose object is an > >> > > object of consumption should be included within the basic > >> > > category of Activity Theory, even if there are important > >> > > psychological differences. Some are also concerned to > >> > > separate symbolic activity, such as speech or supervision of > >> > > labour, from the fundamental category, giving tool-use > >> > > priority over sign use, and use of the term "labour" > >> > > suggests that. Vygotsky expressed himself firmly against > >> > > this move. > >> > > > >> > > So use of "activity" rather than "labour" or vice versa does > >> > > reflect certain tensions within the tradition. > >> > > > >> > > Andy > >> > > > >> > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Tool%20and% > >> > > 20Sign%20in%20Vygotskys%20Development.pdf > >> > > > >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > > Andy Blunden > >> > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > >> > > On 26/10/2017 6:14 PM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. wrote: > >> > > > Xmca seems to have a workerist tendency operating - for > myself I > >> > have > >> > > always found that the work of generalising (in Vygotsky's sense) > >> is a > >> > > labour of object-oriented activity. But that's just me > >> > > > > >> > > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ > >> > > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Alexander Surmava > >> > > > Sent: 26 October 2017 00:13 > >> > > > To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike > >> > Cole; > >> > > ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? > >> > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] ???: Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > >> > activity > >> > > and communication > >> > > > > >> > > > Dear Alfredo, > >> > > > > >> > > > thank you for your very accurate reaction. You definitely > >> noticed > >> > the > >> > > main thing. Today, in the era of globalization and developed > >> > technologies, > >> > > the class antagonism between exploited people and their > >> exploiters, > >> > between > >> > > capital and wage labor, assumes the appearance of the opposite > >> > between > >> > > different ethnic groups and cultures. Capital itself has always > >> been > >> > a > >> > > global phenomenon, and a class of capitalists - a cosmopolitan > >> class. > >> > > Putting military overcoats on workers and sending them to fight > >> and > >> > to kill > >> > > each other under nationalist slogans, they continued to > cooperate > >> > with > >> > > their exploitation colleagues, somehow continuing to receive > >> > dividends from > >> > > their enterprises located on the territory of their "enemy." > Today > >> > Putin's > >> > > friends and henchmen who curse the "insidious West" take their > >> > capitals to > >> > > this West, buy property there, send their children to study > there > >> > and go > >> > > there themselves to rest and be treated. And today Mr. > Poroshenko > >> - > >> > the > >> > > president of the country that was subje > >> > > > cted to the aggression of the neighboring state, owns > chocolate > >> > > factories located on the territory of this country. > >> > > > In Russia, and in Western Europe, and in the United States, > the > >> > policy > >> > > of the ruling classes is based today on inciting against each > >> other > >> > the > >> > > working people of different ethnic groups and confessions, on > >> their > >> > > juxtaposition of each other as superior and second-class > >> creatures. > >> > > > And as an ideological justification of the enmity incited by > the > >> > ruling > >> > > class towards working people of a different skin color, working > >> > people > >> > > speaking a different language and praying to other gods, public > >> > > consciousness is infected with totally false ideas constructed > >> > allegedly on > >> > > a scientific basis. All this is not new. One hundred years ago, > >> the > >> > > dominant ideology rested on undisguised racism. Today, the same > >> task > >> > is > >> > > being solved by more sophisticated means, appealing to so-called > >> > "cultural" > >> > > differences. Although the old ideology appealing to biological > >> > differences > >> > > has not disappeared. Only today it is covered by a new, > >> > molecular-genetic > >> > > argumentation, an appeal not only to livestock farming, but also > >> to > >> > the > >> > > "psychology of culture". > >> > > > It is possible to unmask this bourgeois lie, not only in words > >> but > >> > also > >> > > in deeds, if we can understand that human development is not the > >> > ability of > >> > > individuals to experience (perejivat?) the meaning of words, but > >> to > >> > be > >> > > genuine subjects of object-oriented activity, the subjects of > >> labor. > >> > > > If we stay on Vygotsky's theoretical positions, which believed > >> > that the > >> > > human psyche begins with acts of sensation that thinking is > just a > >> > verbal > >> > > "generalization" of the material that our senses deliver to us, > >> then > >> > any > >> > > wretched ideologist, with a well-suspended language, will seem > to > >> us > >> > the > >> > > owner of perfect wisdom, whereas a worker or a peasant doing his > >> own > >> > work, > >> > > but not possessing the skill of ideological verbosity, will look > >> > something > >> > > inferior. > >> > > > If someone is shocked by such an evaluation of Vygotsky's > >> theory, > >> > open > >> > > his "Thinking and speach" and reread this key paragraph. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > "It has been said that the dialectical leap is not only a > >> > transition > >> > > from matter that is incapable of sensation to matter that is > >> capable > >> > of > >> > > sensation, but a transition from sensation to thought. This > >> implies > >> > that > >> > > reality is reflected in consciousness in a qualitatively > different > >> > way in > >> > > thinking than it is in immediate sensation. This qualitative > >> > difference is > >> > > primarily a function of a generalized reflection of reality. > >> > Therefore, > >> > > generalization in word meaning is an act of thinking in the true > >> > sense of > >> > > the word. At the same time, however, meaning is an inseparable > >> part > >> > of the > >> > > word; it belongs not only to the domain of thought but to the > >> domain > >> > of > >> > > speech. A word without meaning is not a word, but an empty > sound. > >> A > >> > word > >> > > without meaning no longer belongs to the domain of speech. One > >> > cannot say > >> > > of word meaning what we said earlier of the elements of the word > >> > taken > >> > > separately. Is word meaning speech or is it thought? It is both > at > >> > one and > >> > > the same time; it is a unit of verbal thi > >> > > > nking. It is obvious, then, that our method must be that of > >> > semantic > >> > > analysis. Our method must rely on the analysts of the meaningful > >> > aspect of > >> > > speech; it must be a method for studying verbal meaning. > >> > > > > >> > > > We can reasonably anticipate that this method will produce > >> answers > >> > to > >> > > our questions concerning the relationship between thinking and > >> speech > >> > > because this relationship is already contained in the unit of > >> > analysis. In > >> > > studying the function, structure, and development of this unit, > we > >> > will > >> > > come to understand a great deal that is of direct relevance to > the > >> > problem > >> > > of the relationship of thinking to speech and to the nature of > >> verbal > >> > > thinking." > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Obviously, such an "understanding" of thinking has not the > >> > slightest > >> > > relation to either Spinozism or Marxism. It is a naive attempt > to > >> > combine > >> > > eclectically the old ideas of empirical psychology with the > school > >> > textbook > >> > > of formal logic. > >> > > > (Of course, I understand that this paragraph needs more > detailed > >> > > theoretical analysis. And I will not slow down this analysis in > >> the > >> > very > >> > > near future. In the meantime, I only note that Vygotsky's > >> assertion > >> > that > >> > > "generalization is a verbal act of thought" is a maximally > >> aphoristic > >> > > expression of his idealistic position. For us, as for the > >> > materialists, the > >> > > generalization is a practical act and its instrument is the > >> > instrument of > >> > > labor. And the initial and universal instrument of > generalization > >> is > >> > not a > >> > > sign, but an instrument of labor. So the ax is a means of > >> > generalizing the > >> > > properties of wood. The ax is, in the same time, a means of > >> > analyzing all > >> > > the same wood. All this is obvious, looking through the optics > of > >> > > Spinoza-Ilyenkov, that is, simply a Marxist definition of > >> ideality.) > >> > > Theoretical conclusions made by Vygotsky from the results of > >> Luria's > >> > trip > >> > > to Uzbekistan logically follow from the above. The Uzbek > >> illiterate > >> > > peasant, not from school textbooks, but from his own labo > >> > > > r experience knowing how the earth, aryk, water, hoe and > melon > >> are > >> > > connected, and therefore refusing to produce meaningless formal > >> > logical > >> > > operations with words denoting these things, is declared a > >> primitive > >> > > thinking by "complexes". Simultaneously, any school crap who > knows > >> > how to > >> > > pronounce definitions from his textbook and familiar with the > >> melon > >> > only > >> > > when it is bought, washed and cut by his mommy, is declared the > >> > bearer of > >> > > scientific consciousness. > >> > > > > >> > > > Only in this way can we, as psychologists and teachers, come > to > >> the > >> > > value of instruments of labor, not only for the distribution of > >> > material > >> > > wealth, but also for the distribution of the spiritual wealth, > for > >> > the > >> > > distribution of the ability to think, for the distribution of > >> > culture. Only > >> > > in this way can we approach the Marxist definition of culture as > >> the > >> > > totality of the means of its object-oriented activity > accumulated > >> by > >> > > humankind the means of its labor. Only on the path of such based > >> on > >> > idea of > >> > > object-oriented activity understanding of man we will be able to > >> get > >> > out of > >> > > the deadlock of the semiotic, with its symbolic arbitrariness. > >> > > > Vygotsky's merit is that he was the first who seriously set > the > >> > task of > >> > > creating a Marxist psychology and his merit can be considered > that > >> > the > >> > > first real step in this direction was made by his friend and > >> student > >> > AN > >> > > Leontiev.Our task is to continue their mission. > >> > > > Sasha > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > ??: Alfredo Jornet Gil > >> > > > ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < > >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> > >; > >> > > Mike Cole ; ivan-dgf ; > >> > Martin > >> > > John Packer ; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? < > >> > > haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>; Alexander Surmava < > >> > > alexander.surmava@yahoo.com> > >> > > > ??????????: ?????, 25 ??????? 2017 15:03 > >> > > > ????: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > >> activity > >> > and > >> > > communication > >> > > > > >> > > > #yiv0081188988 #yiv0081188988 -- P > >> {margin-top:0px;margin-bottom: > >> > 0px;}#yiv0081188988 > >> > > Dear Sasha, all, > >> > > > > >> > > > apologies for late response, as we've had some health issues > at > >> > home > >> > > that fortunately are now dissipating but which have limited > >> > participation > >> > > anywhere else than home life. > >> > > > > >> > > > The real need of democratic pedagogy. That sounds like a > >> concrete > >> > aspect > >> > > to begin moving on to what we had hoped at the beginning of this > >> > > conversation: how is this all gonna be of practical (real) > >> relevance > >> > to us > >> > > and not only armchair discussion. So, in what sense is this > >> 'real,' > >> > and is > >> > > this a 'need'? (I am not addressing Sasha alone, I am addressing > >> any > >> > and > >> > > everyone) > >> > > > > >> > > > Alfredo > >> > > > > >> > > > From: Alexander Surmava > >> > > > Sent: 21 October 2017 13:36 > >> > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole; Alfredo > Jornet > >> > Gil; > >> > > ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? > >> > > > Subject: ???: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > >> > activity > >> > > and communication Dear Martin,I think that if we're going to > >> discuss > >> > the > >> > > method of Marx, then it is better to do it discussing his most > >> > mature work. > >> > > That is evidently "Das Kapital" and Ilyenkov's monograph > >> "Dialectics > >> > of the > >> > > abstract and concrete in theoretical thinking". I am aware that > >> > there is a > >> > > point of view that the position of Marx as a humanist was > >> adequately > >> > > presented in Gr?ndrisse, whereas the humanistic core of Marx's > >> > theory was > >> > > allegedly lost in ?Das Kapital?. Accordingly, Marxism is better > to > >> > study > >> > > with the help of Gr?ndrisse, and not with the help of ?Das > >> Kapital?. > >> > Along > >> > > with Ilyenkov I do not share this view.I'm afraid that the > >> > discussion of > >> > > this topic would take us too far from our psychological themes. > I > >> > think > >> > > that we should not get stuck in discussing the order of "steps", > >> but > >> > > immediately put our foot on the first "step" so that after that > >> try > >> > to rise > >> > > from it to the seco > >> > > > nd, and so on ... Taking into account my not young age, it > >> seems > >> > to me > >> > > that at least for me, it's time to move on from the discussion > of > >> the > >> > > method to the discussion of the subject, from the preparation to > >> > thinking, > >> > > to the thinking as such. Especially because the Method can not > be > >> > studied > >> > > before and regardless of the study of the very subject. Perhaps > >> this > >> > seems > >> > > paradoxical, but it is a paradox only for those who are not > >> familiar > >> > with > >> > > the dialectic of Spinoza and Marx. Meanwhile, instead of > >> discussing > >> > the > >> > > question - what is activity, or what is the psyche - we continue > >> to > >> > carry > >> > > water in a sieve, discussing the singular or plural of the term > >> > activity. > >> > > Without a doubt, this topic is very useful for translators from > >> > Russian (or > >> > > German) language to English, but theoretically it is not very > >> > informative. > >> > > And besides, we are convinced that Andy Blunden completely > >> exhausted > >> > this > >> > > topic a few years ago. Much more interesting would be to discuss > >> the > >> > > question: what is the justificati > >> > > > on to declare Vygotsky the founder of activity theory. Where, > >> in > >> > any > >> > > > of his works, Vygotsky introduces the concept of activity, not > >> > just uses > >> > > the term ?activity? in the theoretical contexts in which it is > >> used > >> > > habitually by idealistic psychology. ?The activity (or > >> activities) of > >> > > consciousness?, ?the activity (or activities) of mental > >> functions?, > >> > ?speech > >> > > activity (or activities)?, the concrete activities of the > >> > personality?- all > >> > > this has nothing to do with object-oriented activity, with > Spinoza > >> > and > >> > > Marx. It seems to me that our main mistake is that we are > >> discussing > >> > the > >> > > subtleties of understanding the categories of activity by > Vygotsky > >> > and > >> > > Leontyev, whereas we need something different. It is necessary > to > >> > try to > >> > > formulate OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of the activity, proceeding from > >> THE > >> > REAL > >> > > NEED OF THE PRACTICE OF DEMOCRATIC PEDAGOGY.It is impossible to > >> > understand > >> > > activity based on Vygotsky's ideas, because there was no such > >> > theoretical > >> > > category in his theoretical system of views. AN Leontiev > >> introduces a > >> > > category of object-oriented a > >> > > > ctivity into psychology, but his theory is of little use for > >> > solving > >> > > practical problems too, for saying ?A?, Leontyev never said ?B?. > >> > Having > >> > > proposed the principle of activity as the universal basis of the > >> > > psychological theory, its germ cell AN Leontiev did not go > further > >> > failing > >> > > to concretize this correctly chosen abstract category.Once > again, > >> > from > >> > > thehobby group of lovers of Vygotsky, with his > >> "?ultural-?istorical > >> > > Psychology" and AN Leontyev with his "Psychological Theory of > >> > Activity" we > >> > > all have to become community of researchers developing > >> fundamentally > >> > new > >> > > approaches to education, based on dialectical, revolutionary > >> method > >> > of > >> > > Marx.For the realization of this dream, it is necessary to begin > >> not > >> > so > >> > > much - to learn to listen to each other... :-)Sincerely,Sasha > >> > > > > >> > > > ??: Martin John Packer > >> > > > ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < > >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> > >> > > > ??????????: ???????, 20 ??????? 2017 3:08 > >> > > > ????: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity > >> and > >> > > communication > >> > > > > >> > > > Right, Marx was himself well aware of this difference. My > point > >> is > >> > that > >> > > we have begin to talk about ?the start? of Marx?s analysis, and > >> > about its > >> > > ?stages,? but these should not be equated with the order of the > >> > treatment > >> > > in Capital. > >> > > > > >> > > > Martin > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden >> > >> > > nden@mira.net>> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm > >> > > > > >> > > > Of course the method of presentation must differ in form > >> > > > from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the > >> > > > material in detail, to analyse its different forms of > >> > > > development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only > >> > > > after this work is done, can the actual movement be > >> > > > adequately described. If this is done successfully, if > >> > > > the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as > >> > > > in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a > >> > > > mere a priori construction. > >> > > > > >> > > > Andy > >> > > > > >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > > > Andy Blunden > >> > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > >> > > > On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > >> > > > Seems to me that if we?re going to talk about the details of > >> Marx?s > >> > > analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. > The > >> > two have > >> > > virtually opposite organizations; it?s clear that the order of > >> > presentation > >> > > in Capital was not the order of analysis. > >> > > > > >> > > > Martin > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > > Assistant Professor > > Department of Anthropology > > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > > Brigham Young University > > Provo, UT 84602 > > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > From jamesma320@gmail.com Tue Oct 31 15:09:22 2017 From: jamesma320@gmail.com (James Ma) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 22:09:22 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?RndkOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J4=?= =?utf-8?q?=D1=82=D0=B2=3A_Re=3A_Object_oriented_activity_and_commu?= =?utf-8?q?nication?= In-Reply-To: References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> <630D49CF-00CD-463E-A9B1-1E2924FCE197@uniandes.edu.co> <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> <6B0A96B7-3ACE-43E8-8CFC-3AD05568269A@uniandes.edu.co> <919379338.1678471.1508585766999@mail.yahoo.com> <1508933013877.70037@iped.uio.no> <1311730113.6439834.1508973202950@mail.yahoo.com> <6e7d87e2-b3e7-5b41-1175-04c13dd1d78c@mira.net> <5EA1DF7F-AB22-4F5A-B150-6B9EB9FBA4E9@manchester.ac.uk> Message-ID: Perhaps I should say this was my privileged access because when I saw Volosinov in Greg's message it immediately reminded me of the link between his inner sign and the notion of privileged access. James 2017?10?31? ??9:50?"James Ma" ??? I'm inclined to think Volosinov's inner sign resembles privileged access - both are located within oneself, inaccessible for other people. James On 31 October 2017 at 20:36, Greg Thompson wrote: > and for those curious about Volosinov, here is a great review of one of > Volosinov's works, Marxism and the Philosophy of Language (it happens to be > the one that I was referring to with the mention of hunger): > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00210.x/full > > -greg > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Greg Thompson > > wrote: > > > David, > > > > I'd like to resist some of the individualism and internalism implied by > > your notion of "privileged access". (and I suspect that this capacity > > presupposes "guess what I'm thinking" kinds of games, and these are WEIRD > > phenomena in as much as they aren't culturally universal - in some > cultural > > contexts they are seen to be rude!). > > > > To put my concern slightly differently and into questions: > > 1. What exactly is it that one has "privileged access" to? > > 2. Are there really no times in which we can have a feeling that is > > someone else's? Can a child's fear not be the mother's fear? > > 3. Are our feelings all ours? and not of others? (Here I'm thinking of > the > > experience of watching my children be socialized into feelings by seeing > > what kinds of emotional expressions lead to what kinds of practical > > outcomes (and here refer back to #1). But I'm also thinking of > Volosinov's > > notion of behavioral ideology - a feeling of hunger is something > different > > when shared by thousands of others). > > 4. What is inside (and privileged) and what is outside (and not?)? > > > > Anyway, that's a bit of a mess, philosophically and otherwise, but seems > > like questions very relevant to thinking about Vygotsky in the vein of > > Hegel/Marx and attempts to transcend simple dualisms of subject/object, > > inside/outside, individual/society, etc. > > > > Hope you are well wherever you may be > > and may my well-being be your well-being... > > > > -greg > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 3:35 PM, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > >> I think that when your grandson feels fear, what the child feels is his > >> own fear and not your fear. As you point out, what is communicated is a > >> vague uneasiness and not urgent and immediately actionable thought "I'm > >> afraid that my grandson is going to electrocute himself" or even > "Grandpa > >> is afraid that I am going to electrocute myself". I think that when > Alan > >> Bennet's mother sees the cow, what she feels is the sensation of seeing > >> shapes and colors and remembering seeing such patterns in some concrete > >> context and not the precise location of a specifiable semantic address. > So > >> it seems to me that Wittgenstein is confirmed and not confounded. > >> > >> Vygosky says that when a wild goose is startled and the whole flock > takes > >> wing, we should call it "contamination' rather than "communication". > What > >> is "communicable" here is symptom not cause. The first goose is afraid > of > >> something and not because the other geese are afraid. The other geese > are > >> not afraid of whatever it was that startled the first goose; they are > >> afraid because the first goose is afraid, and that is all. > >> > >> If you have a cold and sneeze, and I am sneezing because of the pepper > on > >> my pickle sandwich, then I cannot say that I have caught your cold. > There > >> is a well-known joke which makes the same point: if you scream in a > >> theatre, everybody tells you to shut up, but if you scream on an > airplane > >> they all join in. In neither case, however, is there a feeling > >> communicated: in both cases, the only thing being communicated was the > >> fact > >> of screaming, not the emotion that gave rise to it. > >> > >> It makes a difference to an undamaged human brain. Here's Dr. Adolfo > >> Garcia > >> demonstrating that there are good neurological reasons why you can say > "My > >> grandson ate breakfast" and even "My grandson felt/thought that it was > >> time > >> for breakfast'" but you cannot say "My grandson ate that it was time for > >> breakfast". Mental processes are one thing, and material processes are > >> another: a human brain knows the difference, and our languages reflect > >> this > >> knowledge. > >> > >> https://vimeo.com/111374335 > >> > >> Dr. Garcia has a good paper on this in Functions of Language: > >> > >> https://benjamins.com/#catalog/journals/fol.23.3.02gar/details > >> > >> If Alan Bennet's mum confirms Wittgenstein, but Alan Bennett thinks > >> Wittgenstein is confounded, can we really say that he has understood > >> Wittgenstein? if you prove my point, but you think you are actually > >> contradicting it, have we communicated or not? > >> > >> David Kellogg > >> > >> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Julian Williams < > >> julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > >> > >> > David > >> > > >> > When I see my grandchild fall and bang their head I ?feel their pain? > >> and > >> > wince even before I hear him cry? even more so, my grandson seems to > >> feel > >> > my fear before I actually say anything about it (when they poke their > >> > finger into the socket), and even though he is too young to have any > >> words > >> > for ?fear?? when you see someone?s face twist in such and such a way, > >> you > >> > mirror it and feel the sensation associated with the expression > straight > >> > away, don?t you? > >> > > >> > At some level of perception, we do communicate without words. As Alan > >> > Bennet said in his diaries (when his demented mother pointed to a cow > in > >> > the field and said ?I know what they are but not what they are > called?) > >> > ?Thus Wittgenstein was confounded by my mother?. > >> > > >> > Am I missing your point? > >> > > >> > Julian > >> > > >> > On 26/10/2017, 11:58, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of > >> David > >> > Kellogg" >> > dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > All Vygotsky says is that thinking is represented in the brain > >> > differently > >> > than immediate sensation. Vygotsky didn't have access to MRI scans > >> or > >> > computerized tomography. In fact these can and do distinguish > >> between > >> > verbs > >> > of sensation and verbs of verbal report. But what Vygotsky did > have > >> > access > >> > to is the grammar of reported speech. > >> > > >> > In all languages that I know, it is possible to quote the words of > >> > another > >> > person. I can say, for example: > >> > > >> > Sasha says "Obviously, this has nothing to do with Marxism". > >> > > >> > I can also quote the thoughts of another person. > >> > > >> > Sasha thinks, "Obviously, this has nothing to with Marxism." > >> > > >> > I can do this even when there are no actual words, just as I can > >> read > >> > Sasha's thoughts without him speaking them. > >> > > >> > However, in no languages that Iknow is it possible to quote the > >> > actions or > >> > the immediate sensations of another person. I cannot say, for > >> example: > >> > > >> > "Sasha stood "Up"" > >> > > >> > "Sasha felt 'Cold'". > >> > > >> > When I try to say this, what I end up saying is that Sasha > thought a > >> > word > >> > meaning, not that he felt an immediate sensation. > >> > > >> > In Chinese we say, "The speaker has gone, and the tea is cold." > >> This > >> > is > >> > originally a line from the revolutionary opera "Shajiabang", > about a > >> > woman > >> > who runs a teahouse used by communists. In this scene, the > children > >> are > >> > acting out a visit by a Chinese quisling and a Japanese officer; > >> they > >> > accuse the woman of communist sympathies, and she says that all > >> people > >> > who > >> > come to her teahouse have sympathies, but as soon as they go, > their > >> > tea is > >> > cold, and she throws it out (6:13). > >> > > >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUYvyRMvCNU > >> > > >> > There is no way, as Wittgenstein says, to feel the toothache of > >> another > >> > person; all you can do is to describe it in thoughts and words. > >> > Paradoxically, when we want to share thoughts, we can do it > >> > "immediately", > >> > because thoughts and words have already made the dialectical > >> leap--the > >> > leap > >> > from idiolect into a sharable dialect. > >> > > >> > David Kellogg > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > other verbs). First of all, notice that he is saying that > >> > > >> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Andy Blunden > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > That is a tendency within our heritage, David. Some people > >> > > take the category of "labour" rather than "activity" to be > >> > > the key category. > >> > > > >> > > As I understand it, "labour," or "production," is activity > >> > > in the case where production and consumption and socially > >> > > mediated, but I think that activity whose object is an > >> > > object of consumption should be included within the basic > >> > > category of Activity Theory, even if there are important > >> > > psychological differences. Some are also concerned to > >> > > separate symbolic activity, such as speech or supervision of > >> > > labour, from the fundamental category, giving tool-use > >> > > priority over sign use, and use of the term "labour" > >> > > suggests that. Vygotsky expressed himself firmly against > >> > > this move. > >> > > > >> > > So use of "activity" rather than "labour" or vice versa does > >> > > reflect certain tensions within the tradition. > >> > > > >> > > Andy > >> > > > >> > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Tool%20and% > >> > > 20Sign%20in%20Vygotskys%20Development.pdf > >> > > > >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > > Andy Blunden > >> > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > >> > > On 26/10/2017 6:14 PM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. wrote: > >> > > > Xmca seems to have a workerist tendency operating - for > myself I > >> > have > >> > > always found that the work of generalising (in Vygotsky's sense) > >> is a > >> > > labour of object-oriented activity. But that's just me > >> > > > > >> > > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@ > >> > > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Alexander Surmava > >> > > > Sent: 26 October 2017 00:13 > >> > > > To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike > >> > Cole; > >> > > ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? > >> > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] ???: Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > >> > activity > >> > > and communication > >> > > > > >> > > > Dear Alfredo, > >> > > > > >> > > > thank you for your very accurate reaction. You definitely > >> noticed > >> > the > >> > > main thing. Today, in the era of globalization and developed > >> > technologies, > >> > > the class antagonism between exploited people and their > >> exploiters, > >> > between > >> > > capital and wage labor, assumes the appearance of the opposite > >> > between > >> > > different ethnic groups and cultures. Capital itself has always > >> been > >> > a > >> > > global phenomenon, and a class of capitalists - a cosmopolitan > >> class. > >> > > Putting military overcoats on workers and sending them to fight > >> and > >> > to kill > >> > > each other under nationalist slogans, they continued to > cooperate > >> > with > >> > > their exploitation colleagues, somehow continuing to receive > >> > dividends from > >> > > their enterprises located on the territory of their "enemy." > Today > >> > Putin's > >> > > friends and henchmen who curse the "insidious West" take their > >> > capitals to > >> > > this West, buy property there, send their children to study > there > >> > and go > >> > > there themselves to rest and be treated. And today Mr. > Poroshenko > >> - > >> > the > >> > > president of the country that was subje > >> > > > cted to the aggression of the neighboring state, owns > chocolate > >> > > factories located on the territory of this country. > >> > > > In Russia, and in Western Europe, and in the United States, > the > >> > policy > >> > > of the ruling classes is based today on inciting against each > >> other > >> > the > >> > > working people of different ethnic groups and confessions, on > >> their > >> > > juxtaposition of each other as superior and second-class > >> creatures. > >> > > > And as an ideological justification of the enmity incited by > the > >> > ruling > >> > > class towards working people of a different skin color, working > >> > people > >> > > speaking a different language and praying to other gods, public > >> > > consciousness is infected with totally false ideas constructed > >> > allegedly on > >> > > a scientific basis. All this is not new. One hundred years ago, > >> the > >> > > dominant ideology rested on undisguised racism. Today, the same > >> task > >> > is > >> > > being solved by more sophisticated means, appealing to so-called > >> > "cultural" > >> > > differences. Although the old ideology appealing to biological > >> > differences > >> > > has not disappeared. Only today it is covered by a new, > >> > molecular-genetic > >> > > argumentation, an appeal not only to livestock farming, but also > >> to > >> > the > >> > > "psychology of culture". > >> > > > It is possible to unmask this bourgeois lie, not only in words > >> but > >> > also > >> > > in deeds, if we can understand that human development is not the > >> > ability of > >> > > individuals to experience (perejivat?) the meaning of words, but > >> to > >> > be > >> > > genuine subjects of object-oriented activity, the subjects of > >> labor. > >> > > > If we stay on Vygotsky's theoretical positions, which believed > >> > that the > >> > > human psyche begins with acts of sensation that thinking is > just a > >> > verbal > >> > > "generalization" of the material that our senses deliver to us, > >> then > >> > any > >> > > wretched ideologist, with a well-suspended language, will seem > to > >> us > >> > the > >> > > owner of perfect wisdom, whereas a worker or a peasant doing his > >> own > >> > work, > >> > > but not possessing the skill of ideological verbosity, will look > >> > something > >> > > inferior. > >> > > > If someone is shocked by such an evaluation of Vygotsky's > >> theory, > >> > open > >> > > his "Thinking and speach" and reread this key paragraph. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > "It has been said that the dialectical leap is not only a > >> > transition > >> > > from matter that is incapable of sensation to matter that is > >> capable > >> > of > >> > > sensation, but a transition from sensation to thought. This > >> implies > >> > that > >> > > reality is reflected in consciousness in a qualitatively > different > >> > way in > >> > > thinking than it is in immediate sensation. This qualitative > >> > difference is > >> > > primarily a function of a generalized reflection of reality. > >> > Therefore, > >> > > generalization in word meaning is an act of thinking in the true > >> > sense of > >> > > the word. At the same time, however, meaning is an inseparable > >> part > >> > of the > >> > > word; it belongs not only to the domain of thought but to the > >> domain > >> > of > >> > > speech. A word without meaning is not a word, but an empty > sound. > >> A > >> > word > >> > > without meaning no longer belongs to the domain of speech. One > >> > cannot say > >> > > of word meaning what we said earlier of the elements of the word > >> > taken > >> > > separately. Is word meaning speech or is it thought? It is both > at > >> > one and > >> > > the same time; it is a unit of verbal thi > >> > > > nking. It is obvious, then, that our method must be that of > >> > semantic > >> > > analysis. Our method must rely on the analysts of the meaningful > >> > aspect of > >> > > speech; it must be a method for studying verbal meaning. > >> > > > > >> > > > We can reasonably anticipate that this method will produce > >> answers > >> > to > >> > > our questions concerning the relationship between thinking and > >> speech > >> > > because this relationship is already contained in the unit of > >> > analysis. In > >> > > studying the function, structure, and development of this unit, > we > >> > will > >> > > come to understand a great deal that is of direct relevance to > the > >> > problem > >> > > of the relationship of thinking to speech and to the nature of > >> verbal > >> > > thinking." > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Obviously, such an "understanding" of thinking has not the > >> > slightest > >> > > relation to either Spinozism or Marxism. It is a naive attempt > to > >> > combine > >> > > eclectically the old ideas of empirical psychology with the > school > >> > textbook > >> > > of formal logic. > >> > > > (Of course, I understand that this paragraph needs more > detailed > >> > > theoretical analysis. And I will not slow down this analysis in > >> the > >> > very > >> > > near future. In the meantime, I only note that Vygotsky's > >> assertion > >> > that > >> > > "generalization is a verbal act of thought" is a maximally > >> aphoristic > >> > > expression of his idealistic position. For us, as for the > >> > materialists, the > >> > > generalization is a practical act and its instrument is the > >> > instrument of > >> > > labor. And the initial and universal instrument of > generalization > >> is > >> > not a > >> > > sign, but an instrument of labor. So the ax is a means of > >> > generalizing the > >> > > properties of wood. The ax is, in the same time, a means of > >> > analyzing all > >> > > the same wood. All this is obvious, looking through the optics > of > >> > > Spinoza-Ilyenkov, that is, simply a Marxist definition of > >> ideality.) > >> > > Theoretical conclusions made by Vygotsky from the results of > >> Luria's > >> > trip > >> > > to Uzbekistan logically follow from the above. The Uzbek > >> illiterate > >> > > peasant, not from school textbooks, but from his own labo > >> > > > r experience knowing how the earth, aryk, water, hoe and > melon > >> are > >> > > connected, and therefore refusing to produce meaningless formal > >> > logical > >> > > operations with words denoting these things, is declared a > >> primitive > >> > > thinking by "complexes". Simultaneously, any school crap who > knows > >> > how to > >> > > pronounce definitions from his textbook and familiar with the > >> melon > >> > only > >> > > when it is bought, washed and cut by his mommy, is declared the > >> > bearer of > >> > > scientific consciousness. > >> > > > > >> > > > Only in this way can we, as psychologists and teachers, come > to > >> the > >> > > value of instruments of labor, not only for the distribution of > >> > material > >> > > wealth, but also for the distribution of the spiritual wealth, > for > >> > the > >> > > distribution of the ability to think, for the distribution of > >> > culture. Only > >> > > in this way can we approach the Marxist definition of culture as > >> the > >> > > totality of the means of its object-oriented activity > accumulated > >> by > >> > > humankind the means of its labor. Only on the path of such based > >> on > >> > idea of > >> > > object-oriented activity understanding of man we will be able to > >> get > >> > out of > >> > > the deadlock of the semiotic, with its symbolic arbitrariness. > >> > > > Vygotsky's merit is that he was the first who seriously set > the > >> > task of > >> > > creating a Marxist psychology and his merit can be considered > that > >> > the > >> > > first real step in this direction was made by his friend and > >> student > >> > AN > >> > > Leontiev.Our task is to continue their mission. > >> > > > Sasha > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > ??: Alfredo Jornet Gil > >> > > > ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < > >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> > >; > >> > > Mike Cole ; ivan-dgf ; > >> > Martin > >> > > John Packer ; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? < > >> > > haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>; Alexander Surmava < > >> > > alexander.surmava@yahoo.com> > >> > > > ??????????: ?????, 25 ??????? 2017 15:03 > >> > > > ????: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > >> activity > >> > and > >> > > communication > >> > > > > >> > > > #yiv0081188988 #yiv0081188988 -- P > >> {margin-top:0px;margin-bottom: > >> > 0px;}#yiv0081188988 > >> > > Dear Sasha, all, > >> > > > > >> > > > apologies for late response, as we've had some health issues > at > >> > home > >> > > that fortunately are now dissipating but which have limited > >> > participation > >> > > anywhere else than home life. > >> > > > > >> > > > The real need of democratic pedagogy. That sounds like a > >> concrete > >> > aspect > >> > > to begin moving on to what we had hoped at the beginning of this > >> > > conversation: how is this all gonna be of practical (real) > >> relevance > >> > to us > >> > > and not only armchair discussion. So, in what sense is this > >> 'real,' > >> > and is > >> > > this a 'need'? (I am not addressing Sasha alone, I am addressing > >> any > >> > and > >> > > everyone) > >> > > > > >> > > > Alfredo > >> > > > > >> > > > From: Alexander Surmava > >> > > > Sent: 21 October 2017 13:36 > >> > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole; Alfredo > Jornet > >> > Gil; > >> > > ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? > >> > > > Subject: ???: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > >> > activity > >> > > and communication Dear Martin,I think that if we're going to > >> discuss > >> > the > >> > > method of Marx, then it is better to do it discussing his most > >> > mature work. > >> > > That is evidently "Das Kapital" and Ilyenkov's monograph > >> "Dialectics > >> > of the > >> > > abstract and concrete in theoretical thinking". I am aware that > >> > there is a > >> > > point of view that the position of Marx as a humanist was > >> adequately > >> > > presented in Gr?ndrisse, whereas the humanistic core of Marx's > >> > theory was > >> > > allegedly lost in ?Das Kapital?. Accordingly, Marxism is better > to > >> > study > >> > > with the help of Gr?ndrisse, and not with the help of ?Das > >> Kapital?. > >> > Along > >> > > with Ilyenkov I do not share this view.I'm afraid that the > >> > discussion of > >> > > this topic would take us too far from our psychological themes. > I > >> > think > >> > > that we should not get stuck in discussing the order of "steps", > >> but > >> > > immediately put our foot on the first "step" so that after that > >> try > >> > to rise > >> > > from it to the seco > >> > > > nd, and so on ... Taking into account my not young age, it > >> seems > >> > to me > >> > > that at least for me, it's time to move on from the discussion > of > >> the > >> > > method to the discussion of the subject, from the preparation to > >> > thinking, > >> > > to the thinking as such. Especially because the Method can not > be > >> > studied > >> > > before and regardless of the study of the very subject. Perhaps > >> this > >> > seems > >> > > paradoxical, but it is a paradox only for those who are not > >> familiar > >> > with > >> > > the dialectic of Spinoza and Marx. Meanwhile, instead of > >> discussing > >> > the > >> > > question - what is activity, or what is the psyche - we continue > >> to > >> > carry > >> > > water in a sieve, discussing the singular or plural of the term > >> > activity. > >> > > Without a doubt, this topic is very useful for translators from > >> > Russian (or > >> > > German) language to English, but theoretically it is not very > >> > informative. > >> > > And besides, we are convinced that Andy Blunden completely > >> exhausted > >> > this > >> > > topic a few years ago. Much more interesting would be to discuss > >> the > >> > > question: what is the justificati > >> > > > on to declare Vygotsky the founder of activity theory. Where, > >> in > >> > any > >> > > > of his works, Vygotsky introduces the concept of activity, not > >> > just uses > >> > > the term ?activity? in the theoretical contexts in which it is > >> used > >> > > habitually by idealistic psychology. ?The activity (or > >> activities) of > >> > > consciousness?, ?the activity (or activities) of mental > >> functions?, > >> > ?speech > >> > > activity (or activities)?, the concrete activities of the > >> > personality?- all > >> > > this has nothing to do with object-oriented activity, with > Spinoza > >> > and > >> > > Marx. It seems to me that our main mistake is that we are > >> discussing > >> > the > >> > > subtleties of understanding the categories of activity by > Vygotsky > >> > and > >> > > Leontyev, whereas we need something different. It is necessary > to > >> > try to > >> > > formulate OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of the activity, proceeding from > >> THE > >> > REAL > >> > > NEED OF THE PRACTICE OF DEMOCRATIC PEDAGOGY.It is impossible to > >> > understand > >> > > activity based on Vygotsky's ideas, because there was no such > >> > theoretical > >> > > category in his theoretical system of views. AN Leontiev > >> introduces a > >> > > category of object-oriented a > >> > > > ctivity into psychology, but his theory is of little use for > >> > solving > >> > > practical problems too, for saying ?A?, Leontyev never said ?B?. > >> > Having > >> > > proposed the principle of activity as the universal basis of the > >> > > psychological theory, its germ cell AN Leontiev did not go > further > >> > failing > >> > > to concretize this correctly chosen abstract category.Once > again, > >> > from > >> > > thehobby group of lovers of Vygotsky, with his > >> "?ultural-?istorical > >> > > Psychology" and AN Leontyev with his "Psychological Theory of > >> > Activity" we > >> > > all have to become community of researchers developing > >> fundamentally > >> > new > >> > > approaches to education, based on dialectical, revolutionary > >> method > >> > of > >> > > Marx.For the realization of this dream, it is necessary to begin > >> not > >> > so > >> > > much - to learn to listen to each other... :-)Sincerely,Sasha > >> > > > > >> > > > ??: Martin John Packer > >> > > > ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < > >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> > >> > > > ??????????: ???????, 20 ??????? 2017 3:08 > >> > > > ????: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented activity > >> and > >> > > communication > >> > > > > >> > > > Right, Marx was himself well aware of this difference. My > point > >> is > >> > that > >> > > we have begin to talk about ?the start? of Marx?s analysis, and > >> > about its > >> > > ?stages,? but these should not be equated with the order of the > >> > treatment > >> > > in Capital. > >> > > > > >> > > > Martin > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden >> > >> > > nden@mira.net>> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm > >> > > > > >> > > > Of course the method of presentation must differ in form > >> > > > from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the > >> > > > material in detail, to analyse its different forms of > >> > > > development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only > >> > > > after this work is done, can the actual movement be > >> > > > adequately described. If this is done successfully, if > >> > > > the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as > >> > > > in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a > >> > > > mere a priori construction. > >> > > > > >> > > > Andy > >> > > > > >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > > > Andy Blunden > >> > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > >> > > > On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > >> > > > Seems to me that if we?re going to talk about the details of > >> Marx?s > >> > > analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. > The > >> > two have > >> > > virtually opposite organizations; it?s clear that the order of > >> > presentation > >> > > in Capital was not the order of analysis. > >> > > > > >> > > > Martin > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > > Assistant Professor > > Department of Anthropology > > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > > Brigham Young University > > Provo, UT 84602 > > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Tue Oct 31 15:32:21 2017 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 16:32:21 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?RndkOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J4=?= =?utf-8?q?=D1=82=D0=B2=3A_Re=3A_Object_oriented_activity_and_commu?= =?utf-8?q?nication?= In-Reply-To: References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> <630D49CF-00CD-463E-A9B1-1E2924FCE197@uniandes.edu.co> <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> <6B0A96B7-3ACE-43E8-8CFC-3AD05568269A@uniandes.edu.co> <919379338.1678471.1508585766999@mail.yahoo.com> <1508933013877.70037@iped.uio.no> <1311730113.6439834.1508973202950@mail.yahoo.com> <6e7d87e2-b3e7-5b41-1175-04c13dd1d78c@mira.net> <5EA1DF7F-AB22-4F5A-B150-6B9EB9FBA4E9@manchester.ac.uk> Message-ID: ?And funny that, in addition to stumbling across David's review of Volosinov that I just posted, I also just happened to have a tab open to this conversation between David and me in August of 2009: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2009_08.dir/msg00054.html History repeats itself. All the more the less you remember (but are archived). Also, just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that there is no such think as "privileged access", I'm simply suggesting that it may be a cultural-historically peculiar phenomena and thus one worth being careful about while also asking tough questions about it. I think the most important question remains "what is it that we are gaining privileged access to?" (and to jump ahead of myself, in the end, I think that this is a Schroedinger's cat moment where access to the thing is, in part, the constitution of the thing being accessed). -greg? p.s. has anyone heard anything about Tony Whitson lately? I just realized how much I miss his snide and biting comments. On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 4:09 PM, James Ma wrote: > Perhaps I should say this was my privileged access because when I saw > Volosinov in Greg's message it immediately reminded me of the link between > his inner sign and the notion of privileged access. > > James > > 2017?10?31? ??9:50?"James Ma" ??? > > I'm inclined to think Volosinov's inner sign resembles privileged access - > both are located within oneself, inaccessible for other people. > > James > > On 31 October 2017 at 20:36, Greg Thompson > wrote: > > > and for those curious about Volosinov, here is a great review of one of > > Volosinov's works, Marxism and the Philosophy of Language (it happens to > be > > the one that I was referring to with the mention of hunger): > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00210.x/full > > > > -greg > > > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Greg Thompson < > greg.a.thompson@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > David, > > > > > > I'd like to resist some of the individualism and internalism implied by > > > your notion of "privileged access". (and I suspect that this capacity > > > presupposes "guess what I'm thinking" kinds of games, and these are > WEIRD > > > phenomena in as much as they aren't culturally universal - in some > > cultural > > > contexts they are seen to be rude!). > > > > > > To put my concern slightly differently and into questions: > > > 1. What exactly is it that one has "privileged access" to? > > > 2. Are there really no times in which we can have a feeling that is > > > someone else's? Can a child's fear not be the mother's fear? > > > 3. Are our feelings all ours? and not of others? (Here I'm thinking of > > the > > > experience of watching my children be socialized into feelings by > seeing > > > what kinds of emotional expressions lead to what kinds of practical > > > outcomes (and here refer back to #1). But I'm also thinking of > > Volosinov's > > > notion of behavioral ideology - a feeling of hunger is something > > different > > > when shared by thousands of others). > > > 4. What is inside (and privileged) and what is outside (and not?)? > > > > > > Anyway, that's a bit of a mess, philosophically and otherwise, but > seems > > > like questions very relevant to thinking about Vygotsky in the vein of > > > Hegel/Marx and attempts to transcend simple dualisms of subject/object, > > > inside/outside, individual/society, etc. > > > > > > Hope you are well wherever you may be > > > and may my well-being be your well-being... > > > > > > -greg > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 3:35 PM, David Kellogg > > > wrote: > > > > > >> I think that when your grandson feels fear, what the child feels is > his > > >> own fear and not your fear. As you point out, what is communicated is > a > > >> vague uneasiness and not urgent and immediately actionable thought > "I'm > > >> afraid that my grandson is going to electrocute himself" or even > > "Grandpa > > >> is afraid that I am going to electrocute myself". I think that when > > Alan > > >> Bennet's mother sees the cow, what she feels is the sensation of > seeing > > >> shapes and colors and remembering seeing such patterns in some > concrete > > >> context and not the precise location of a specifiable semantic > address. > > So > > >> it seems to me that Wittgenstein is confirmed and not confounded. > > >> > > >> Vygosky says that when a wild goose is startled and the whole flock > > takes > > >> wing, we should call it "contamination' rather than "communication". > > What > > >> is "communicable" here is symptom not cause. The first goose is afraid > > of > > >> something and not because the other geese are afraid. The other geese > > are > > >> not afraid of whatever it was that startled the first goose; they are > > >> afraid because the first goose is afraid, and that is all. > > >> > > >> If you have a cold and sneeze, and I am sneezing because of the pepper > > on > > >> my pickle sandwich, then I cannot say that I have caught your cold. > > There > > >> is a well-known joke which makes the same point: if you scream in a > > >> theatre, everybody tells you to shut up, but if you scream on an > > airplane > > >> they all join in. In neither case, however, is there a feeling > > >> communicated: in both cases, the only thing being communicated was the > > >> fact > > >> of screaming, not the emotion that gave rise to it. > > >> > > >> It makes a difference to an undamaged human brain. Here's Dr. Adolfo > > >> Garcia > > >> demonstrating that there are good neurological reasons why you can say > > "My > > >> grandson ate breakfast" and even "My grandson felt/thought that it was > > >> time > > >> for breakfast'" but you cannot say "My grandson ate that it was time > for > > >> breakfast". Mental processes are one thing, and material processes > are > > >> another: a human brain knows the difference, and our languages reflect > > >> this > > >> knowledge. > > >> > > >> https://vimeo.com/111374335 > > >> > > >> Dr. Garcia has a good paper on this in Functions of Language: > > >> > > >> https://benjamins.com/#catalog/journals/fol.23.3.02gar/details > > >> > > >> If Alan Bennet's mum confirms Wittgenstein, but Alan Bennett thinks > > >> Wittgenstein is confounded, can we really say that he has understood > > >> Wittgenstein? if you prove my point, but you think you are actually > > >> contradicting it, have we communicated or not? > > >> > > >> David Kellogg > > >> > > >> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Julian Williams < > > >> julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > > >> > > >> > David > > >> > > > >> > When I see my grandchild fall and bang their head I ?feel their > pain? > > >> and > > >> > wince even before I hear him cry? even more so, my grandson seems to > > >> feel > > >> > my fear before I actually say anything about it (when they poke > their > > >> > finger into the socket), and even though he is too young to have any > > >> words > > >> > for ?fear?? when you see someone?s face twist in such and such a > way, > > >> you > > >> > mirror it and feel the sensation associated with the expression > > straight > > >> > away, don?t you? > > >> > > > >> > At some level of perception, we do communicate without words. As > Alan > > >> > Bennet said in his diaries (when his demented mother pointed to a > cow > > in > > >> > the field and said ?I know what they are but not what they are > > called?) > > >> > ?Thus Wittgenstein was confounded by my mother?. > > >> > > > >> > Am I missing your point? > > >> > > > >> > Julian > > >> > > > >> > On 26/10/2017, 11:58, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of > > >> David > > >> > Kellogg" > >> > dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > All Vygotsky says is that thinking is represented in the brain > > >> > differently > > >> > than immediate sensation. Vygotsky didn't have access to MRI > scans > > >> or > > >> > computerized tomography. In fact these can and do distinguish > > >> between > > >> > verbs > > >> > of sensation and verbs of verbal report. But what Vygotsky did > > have > > >> > access > > >> > to is the grammar of reported speech. > > >> > > > >> > In all languages that I know, it is possible to quote the words > of > > >> > another > > >> > person. I can say, for example: > > >> > > > >> > Sasha says "Obviously, this has nothing to do with Marxism". > > >> > > > >> > I can also quote the thoughts of another person. > > >> > > > >> > Sasha thinks, "Obviously, this has nothing to with Marxism." > > >> > > > >> > I can do this even when there are no actual words, just as I can > > >> read > > >> > Sasha's thoughts without him speaking them. > > >> > > > >> > However, in no languages that Iknow is it possible to quote the > > >> > actions or > > >> > the immediate sensations of another person. I cannot say, for > > >> example: > > >> > > > >> > "Sasha stood "Up"" > > >> > > > >> > "Sasha felt 'Cold'". > > >> > > > >> > When I try to say this, what I end up saying is that Sasha > > thought a > > >> > word > > >> > meaning, not that he felt an immediate sensation. > > >> > > > >> > In Chinese we say, "The speaker has gone, and the tea is cold." > > >> This > > >> > is > > >> > originally a line from the revolutionary opera "Shajiabang", > > about a > > >> > woman > > >> > who runs a teahouse used by communists. In this scene, the > > children > > >> are > > >> > acting out a visit by a Chinese quisling and a Japanese officer; > > >> they > > >> > accuse the woman of communist sympathies, and she says that all > > >> people > > >> > who > > >> > come to her teahouse have sympathies, but as soon as they go, > > their > > >> > tea is > > >> > cold, and she throws it out (6:13). > > >> > > > >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUYvyRMvCNU > > >> > > > >> > There is no way, as Wittgenstein says, to feel the toothache of > > >> another > > >> > person; all you can do is to describe it in thoughts and words. > > >> > Paradoxically, when we want to share thoughts, we can do it > > >> > "immediately", > > >> > because thoughts and words have already made the dialectical > > >> leap--the > > >> > leap > > >> > from idiolect into a sharable dialect. > > >> > > > >> > David Kellogg > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > other verbs). First of all, notice that he is saying that > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Andy Blunden < > ablunden@mira.net> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > That is a tendency within our heritage, David. Some people > > >> > > take the category of "labour" rather than "activity" to be > > >> > > the key category. > > >> > > > > >> > > As I understand it, "labour," or "production," is activity > > >> > > in the case where production and consumption and socially > > >> > > mediated, but I think that activity whose object is an > > >> > > object of consumption should be included within the basic > > >> > > category of Activity Theory, even if there are important > > >> > > psychological differences. Some are also concerned to > > >> > > separate symbolic activity, such as speech or supervision of > > >> > > labour, from the fundamental category, giving tool-use > > >> > > priority over sign use, and use of the term "labour" > > >> > > suggests that. Vygotsky expressed himself firmly against > > >> > > this move. > > >> > > > > >> > > So use of "activity" rather than "labour" or vice versa does > > >> > > reflect certain tensions within the tradition. > > >> > > > > >> > > Andy > > >> > > > > >> > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Tool%20and% > > >> > > 20Sign%20in%20Vygotskys%20Development.pdf > > >> > > > > >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >> > > Andy Blunden > > >> > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > >> > > On 26/10/2017 6:14 PM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. wrote: > > >> > > > Xmca seems to have a workerist tendency operating - for > > myself I > > >> > have > > >> > > always found that the work of generalising (in Vygotsky's > sense) > > >> is a > > >> > > labour of object-oriented activity. But that's just me > > >> > > > > > >> > > > -----Original Message----- > > >> > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@ > > >> > > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Alexander Surmava > > >> > > > Sent: 26 October 2017 00:13 > > >> > > > To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; > Mike > > >> > Cole; > > >> > > ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? > > >> > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] ???: Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > > >> > activity > > >> > > and communication > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Dear Alfredo, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > thank you for your very accurate reaction. You definitely > > >> noticed > > >> > the > > >> > > main thing. Today, in the era of globalization and developed > > >> > technologies, > > >> > > the class antagonism between exploited people and their > > >> exploiters, > > >> > between > > >> > > capital and wage labor, assumes the appearance of the opposite > > >> > between > > >> > > different ethnic groups and cultures. Capital itself has > always > > >> been > > >> > a > > >> > > global phenomenon, and a class of capitalists - a cosmopolitan > > >> class. > > >> > > Putting military overcoats on workers and sending them to > fight > > >> and > > >> > to kill > > >> > > each other under nationalist slogans, they continued to > > cooperate > > >> > with > > >> > > their exploitation colleagues, somehow continuing to receive > > >> > dividends from > > >> > > their enterprises located on the territory of their "enemy." > > Today > > >> > Putin's > > >> > > friends and henchmen who curse the "insidious West" take their > > >> > capitals to > > >> > > this West, buy property there, send their children to study > > there > > >> > and go > > >> > > there themselves to rest and be treated. And today Mr. > > Poroshenko > > >> - > > >> > the > > >> > > president of the country that was subje > > >> > > > cted to the aggression of the neighboring state, owns > > chocolate > > >> > > factories located on the territory of this country. > > >> > > > In Russia, and in Western Europe, and in the United States, > > the > > >> > policy > > >> > > of the ruling classes is based today on inciting against each > > >> other > > >> > the > > >> > > working people of different ethnic groups and confessions, on > > >> their > > >> > > juxtaposition of each other as superior and second-class > > >> creatures. > > >> > > > And as an ideological justification of the enmity incited by > > the > > >> > ruling > > >> > > class towards working people of a different skin color, > working > > >> > people > > >> > > speaking a different language and praying to other gods, > public > > >> > > consciousness is infected with totally false ideas constructed > > >> > allegedly on > > >> > > a scientific basis. All this is not new. One hundred years > ago, > > >> the > > >> > > dominant ideology rested on undisguised racism. Today, the > same > > >> task > > >> > is > > >> > > being solved by more sophisticated means, appealing to > so-called > > >> > "cultural" > > >> > > differences. Although the old ideology appealing to biological > > >> > differences > > >> > > has not disappeared. Only today it is covered by a new, > > >> > molecular-genetic > > >> > > argumentation, an appeal not only to livestock farming, but > also > > >> to > > >> > the > > >> > > "psychology of culture". > > >> > > > It is possible to unmask this bourgeois lie, not only in > words > > >> but > > >> > also > > >> > > in deeds, if we can understand that human development is not > the > > >> > ability of > > >> > > individuals to experience (perejivat?) the meaning of words, > but > > >> to > > >> > be > > >> > > genuine subjects of object-oriented activity, the subjects of > > >> labor. > > >> > > > If we stay on Vygotsky's theoretical positions, which > believed > > >> > that the > > >> > > human psyche begins with acts of sensation that thinking is > > just a > > >> > verbal > > >> > > "generalization" of the material that our senses deliver to > us, > > >> then > > >> > any > > >> > > wretched ideologist, with a well-suspended language, will seem > > to > > >> us > > >> > the > > >> > > owner of perfect wisdom, whereas a worker or a peasant doing > his > > >> own > > >> > work, > > >> > > but not possessing the skill of ideological verbosity, will > look > > >> > something > > >> > > inferior. > > >> > > > If someone is shocked by such an evaluation of Vygotsky's > > >> theory, > > >> > open > > >> > > his "Thinking and speach" and reread this key paragraph. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > "It has been said that the dialectical leap is not only a > > >> > transition > > >> > > from matter that is incapable of sensation to matter that is > > >> capable > > >> > of > > >> > > sensation, but a transition from sensation to thought. This > > >> implies > > >> > that > > >> > > reality is reflected in consciousness in a qualitatively > > different > > >> > way in > > >> > > thinking than it is in immediate sensation. This qualitative > > >> > difference is > > >> > > primarily a function of a generalized reflection of reality. > > >> > Therefore, > > >> > > generalization in word meaning is an act of thinking in the > true > > >> > sense of > > >> > > the word. At the same time, however, meaning is an inseparable > > >> part > > >> > of the > > >> > > word; it belongs not only to the domain of thought but to the > > >> domain > > >> > of > > >> > > speech. A word without meaning is not a word, but an empty > > sound. > > >> A > > >> > word > > >> > > without meaning no longer belongs to the domain of speech. One > > >> > cannot say > > >> > > of word meaning what we said earlier of the elements of the > word > > >> > taken > > >> > > separately. Is word meaning speech or is it thought? It is > both > > at > > >> > one and > > >> > > the same time; it is a unit of verbal thi > > >> > > > nking. It is obvious, then, that our method must be that of > > >> > semantic > > >> > > analysis. Our method must rely on the analysts of the > meaningful > > >> > aspect of > > >> > > speech; it must be a method for studying verbal meaning. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > We can reasonably anticipate that this method will produce > > >> answers > > >> > to > > >> > > our questions concerning the relationship between thinking and > > >> speech > > >> > > because this relationship is already contained in the unit of > > >> > analysis. In > > >> > > studying the function, structure, and development of this > unit, > > we > > >> > will > > >> > > come to understand a great deal that is of direct relevance to > > the > > >> > problem > > >> > > of the relationship of thinking to speech and to the nature of > > >> verbal > > >> > > thinking." > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Obviously, such an "understanding" of thinking has not the > > >> > slightest > > >> > > relation to either Spinozism or Marxism. It is a naive attempt > > to > > >> > combine > > >> > > eclectically the old ideas of empirical psychology with the > > school > > >> > textbook > > >> > > of formal logic. > > >> > > > (Of course, I understand that this paragraph needs more > > detailed > > >> > > theoretical analysis. And I will not slow down this analysis > in > > >> the > > >> > very > > >> > > near future. In the meantime, I only note that Vygotsky's > > >> assertion > > >> > that > > >> > > "generalization is a verbal act of thought" is a maximally > > >> aphoristic > > >> > > expression of his idealistic position. For us, as for the > > >> > materialists, the > > >> > > generalization is a practical act and its instrument is the > > >> > instrument of > > >> > > labor. And the initial and universal instrument of > > generalization > > >> is > > >> > not a > > >> > > sign, but an instrument of labor. So the ax is a means of > > >> > generalizing the > > >> > > properties of wood. The ax is, in the same time, a means of > > >> > analyzing all > > >> > > the same wood. All this is obvious, looking through the optics > > of > > >> > > Spinoza-Ilyenkov, that is, simply a Marxist definition of > > >> ideality.) > > >> > > Theoretical conclusions made by Vygotsky from the results of > > >> Luria's > > >> > trip > > >> > > to Uzbekistan logically follow from the above. The Uzbek > > >> illiterate > > >> > > peasant, not from school textbooks, but from his own labo > > >> > > > r experience knowing how the earth, aryk, water, hoe and > > melon > > >> are > > >> > > connected, and therefore refusing to produce meaningless > formal > > >> > logical > > >> > > operations with words denoting these things, is declared a > > >> primitive > > >> > > thinking by "complexes". Simultaneously, any school crap who > > knows > > >> > how to > > >> > > pronounce definitions from his textbook and familiar with the > > >> melon > > >> > only > > >> > > when it is bought, washed and cut by his mommy, is declared > the > > >> > bearer of > > >> > > scientific consciousness. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Only in this way can we, as psychologists and teachers, come > > to > > >> the > > >> > > value of instruments of labor, not only for the distribution > of > > >> > material > > >> > > wealth, but also for the distribution of the spiritual wealth, > > for > > >> > the > > >> > > distribution of the ability to think, for the distribution of > > >> > culture. Only > > >> > > in this way can we approach the Marxist definition of culture > as > > >> the > > >> > > totality of the means of its object-oriented activity > > accumulated > > >> by > > >> > > humankind the means of its labor. Only on the path of such > based > > >> on > > >> > idea of > > >> > > object-oriented activity understanding of man we will be able > to > > >> get > > >> > out of > > >> > > the deadlock of the semiotic, with its symbolic arbitrariness. > > >> > > > Vygotsky's merit is that he was the first who seriously set > > the > > >> > task of > > >> > > creating a Marxist psychology and his merit can be considered > > that > > >> > the > > >> > > first real step in this direction was made by his friend and > > >> student > > >> > AN > > >> > > Leontiev.Our task is to continue their mission. > > >> > > > Sasha > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > ??: Alfredo Jornet Gil > > >> > > > ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < > > >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >> > >; > > >> > > Mike Cole ; ivan-dgf >; > > >> > Martin > > >> > > John Packer ; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? < > > >> > > haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>; Alexander Surmava < > > >> > > alexander.surmava@yahoo.com> > > >> > > > ??????????: ?????, 25 ??????? 2017 15:03 > > >> > > > ????: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > > >> activity > > >> > and > > >> > > communication > > >> > > > > > >> > > > #yiv0081188988 #yiv0081188988 -- P > > >> {margin-top:0px;margin-bottom: > > >> > 0px;}#yiv0081188988 > > >> > > Dear Sasha, all, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > apologies for late response, as we've had some health issues > > at > > >> > home > > >> > > that fortunately are now dissipating but which have limited > > >> > participation > > >> > > anywhere else than home life. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > The real need of democratic pedagogy. That sounds like a > > >> concrete > > >> > aspect > > >> > > to begin moving on to what we had hoped at the beginning of > this > > >> > > conversation: how is this all gonna be of practical (real) > > >> relevance > > >> > to us > > >> > > and not only armchair discussion. So, in what sense is this > > >> 'real,' > > >> > and is > > >> > > this a 'need'? (I am not addressing Sasha alone, I am > addressing > > >> any > > >> > and > > >> > > everyone) > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Alfredo > > >> > > > > > >> > > > From: Alexander Surmava > > >> > > > Sent: 21 October 2017 13:36 > > >> > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole; Alfredo > > Jornet > > >> > Gil; > > >> > > ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? > > >> > > > Subject: ???: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > > >> > activity > > >> > > and communication Dear Martin,I think that if we're going to > > >> discuss > > >> > the > > >> > > method of Marx, then it is better to do it discussing his most > > >> > mature work. > > >> > > That is evidently "Das Kapital" and Ilyenkov's monograph > > >> "Dialectics > > >> > of the > > >> > > abstract and concrete in theoretical thinking". I am aware > that > > >> > there is a > > >> > > point of view that the position of Marx as a humanist was > > >> adequately > > >> > > presented in Gr?ndrisse, whereas the humanistic core of Marx's > > >> > theory was > > >> > > allegedly lost in ?Das Kapital?. Accordingly, Marxism is > better > > to > > >> > study > > >> > > with the help of Gr?ndrisse, and not with the help of ?Das > > >> Kapital?. > > >> > Along > > >> > > with Ilyenkov I do not share this view.I'm afraid that the > > >> > discussion of > > >> > > this topic would take us too far from our psychological > themes. > > I > > >> > think > > >> > > that we should not get stuck in discussing the order of > "steps", > > >> but > > >> > > immediately put our foot on the first "step" so that after > that > > >> try > > >> > to rise > > >> > > from it to the seco > > >> > > > nd, and so on ... Taking into account my not young age, it > > >> seems > > >> > to me > > >> > > that at least for me, it's time to move on from the discussion > > of > > >> the > > >> > > method to the discussion of the subject, from the preparation > to > > >> > thinking, > > >> > > to the thinking as such. Especially because the Method can not > > be > > >> > studied > > >> > > before and regardless of the study of the very subject. > Perhaps > > >> this > > >> > seems > > >> > > paradoxical, but it is a paradox only for those who are not > > >> familiar > > >> > with > > >> > > the dialectic of Spinoza and Marx. Meanwhile, instead of > > >> discussing > > >> > the > > >> > > question - what is activity, or what is the psyche - we > continue > > >> to > > >> > carry > > >> > > water in a sieve, discussing the singular or plural of the > term > > >> > activity. > > >> > > Without a doubt, this topic is very useful for translators > from > > >> > Russian (or > > >> > > German) language to English, but theoretically it is not very > > >> > informative. > > >> > > And besides, we are convinced that Andy Blunden completely > > >> exhausted > > >> > this > > >> > > topic a few years ago. Much more interesting would be to > discuss > > >> the > > >> > > question: what is the justificati > > >> > > > on to declare Vygotsky the founder of activity theory. > Where, > > >> in > > >> > any > > >> > > > of his works, Vygotsky introduces the concept of activity, > not > > >> > just uses > > >> > > the term ?activity? in the theoretical contexts in which it is > > >> used > > >> > > habitually by idealistic psychology. ?The activity (or > > >> activities) of > > >> > > consciousness?, ?the activity (or activities) of mental > > >> functions?, > > >> > ?speech > > >> > > activity (or activities)?, the concrete activities of the > > >> > personality?- all > > >> > > this has nothing to do with object-oriented activity, with > > Spinoza > > >> > and > > >> > > Marx. It seems to me that our main mistake is that we are > > >> discussing > > >> > the > > >> > > subtleties of understanding the categories of activity by > > Vygotsky > > >> > and > > >> > > Leontyev, whereas we need something different. It is necessary > > to > > >> > try to > > >> > > formulate OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of the activity, proceeding > from > > >> THE > > >> > REAL > > >> > > NEED OF THE PRACTICE OF DEMOCRATIC PEDAGOGY.It is impossible > to > > >> > understand > > >> > > activity based on Vygotsky's ideas, because there was no such > > >> > theoretical > > >> > > category in his theoretical system of views. AN Leontiev > > >> introduces a > > >> > > category of object-oriented a > > >> > > > ctivity into psychology, but his theory is of little use > for > > >> > solving > > >> > > practical problems too, for saying ?A?, Leontyev never said > ?B?. > > >> > Having > > >> > > proposed the principle of activity as the universal basis of > the > > >> > > psychological theory, its germ cell AN Leontiev did not go > > further > > >> > failing > > >> > > to concretize this correctly chosen abstract category.Once > > again, > > >> > from > > >> > > thehobby group of lovers of Vygotsky, with his > > >> "?ultural-?istorical > > >> > > Psychology" and AN Leontyev with his "Psychological Theory of > > >> > Activity" we > > >> > > all have to become community of researchers developing > > >> fundamentally > > >> > new > > >> > > approaches to education, based on dialectical, revolutionary > > >> method > > >> > of > > >> > > Marx.For the realization of this dream, it is necessary to > begin > > >> not > > >> > so > > >> > > much - to learn to listen to each other... :-)Sincerely,Sasha > > >> > > > > > >> > > > ??: Martin John Packer > > >> > > > ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < > > >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> > > >> > > > ??????????: ???????, 20 ??????? 2017 3:08 > > >> > > > ????: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > activity > > >> and > > >> > > communication > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Right, Marx was himself well aware of this difference. My > > point > > >> is > > >> > that > > >> > > we have begin to talk about ?the start? of Marx?s analysis, > and > > >> > about its > > >> > > ?stages,? but these should not be equated with the order of > the > > >> > treatment > > >> > > in Capital. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Martin > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden < > ablunden@mira.net > > >> > > >> > > nden@mira.net>> wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Of course the method of presentation must differ in form > > >> > > > from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the > > >> > > > material in detail, to analyse its different forms of > > >> > > > development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only > > >> > > > after this work is done, can the actual movement be > > >> > > > adequately described. If this is done successfully, if > > >> > > > the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as > > >> > > > in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a > > >> > > > mere a priori construction. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Andy > > >> > > > > > >> > > > ------------------------------ > ------------------------------ > > >> > > > Andy Blunden > > >> > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > >> > > > On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > > >> > > > Seems to me that if we?re going to talk about the details of > > >> Marx?s > > >> > > analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. > > The > > >> > two have > > >> > > virtually opposite organizations; it?s clear that the order of > > >> > presentation > > >> > > in Capital was not the order of analysis. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Martin > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > > > Assistant Professor > > > Department of Anthropology > > > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > > > Brigham Young University > > > Provo, UT 84602 > > > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > > Assistant Professor > > Department of Anthropology > > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > > Brigham Young University > > Provo, UT 84602 > > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Oct 31 18:22:28 2017 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 10:22:28 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?b?RndkOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J7RgtCyOiBSZTog0J4=?= =?utf-8?q?=D1=82=D0=B2=3A_Re=3A_Object_oriented_activity_and_commu?= =?utf-8?q?nication?= In-Reply-To: References: <946739873.1395270.1506729245941.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <59afeacc-fd47-9b04-e223-68ed7f73716a@mira.net> <494a5bf0-0df2-966e-45d4-909bec0eb0e2@mira.net> <1508157096837.56798@iped.uio.no> <1508157779337.31524@iped.uio.no> <0e0bfd62-2331-2143-0bcf-e622f15b80c4@mira.net> <1120933875.1584374.1508166018196@mail.yahoo.com> <89ada441-db37-b749-ac6c-ad6af2ec5be5@mira.net> <1109005705.1020334.1508252425875@mail.yahoo.com> <652069959.1541117.1508291557019@mail.yahoo.com> <630D49CF-00CD-463E-A9B1-1E2924FCE197@uniandes.edu.co> <3dfdf446-6817-096d-182e-98ae5bd561bf@mira.net> <6B0A96B7-3ACE-43E8-8CFC-3AD05568269A@uniandes.edu.co> <919379338.1678471.1508585766999@mail.yahoo.com> <1508933013877.70037@iped.uio.no> <1311730113.6439834.1508973202950@mail.yahoo.com> <6e7d87e2-b3e7-5b41-1175-04c13dd1d78c@mira.net> <5EA1DF7F-AB22-4F5A-B150-6B9EB9FBA4E9@manchester.ac.uk> Message-ID: Voloshinov begins his discussion on pp. 88-89 of Marxism and the Philosophy of Language with the simple idea that the "I experience" of hunger is one end of a pole, the end we share with animals, one which cannot be communicated and ultimately leads to self-extinction, either when food is provided or the experiencer dies of inanition. As far as we know, this experience is undifferentiated: it is felt but not apperceived (that is, the feeling of feeling it is not felt; it is "live" but not "life o'er lived", "zhivanie" but not "perezhivanie"). At the other end of the pole is the "we experience" which is necessarily differentiated because it is over-lived differently by people of different classes--the vagabond sullen and envious in hunger, the mystic fasting sententiously unto death, the peasant resigned and blaming the weather, and finally the proletarians who reject hunger altogether precisely because they have the obscene sight of a satiated boss and family before them and starving children at their side. (Voloshinov also says that there are human sexual experiences at both poles, but he refers us to pp. 135-136 of his book on Freudianism, and my English edition doesn't have a p. 135.) Brecht discusses how to convey this operatically (because of course Brecht was a big fan of Chinese opera, and met the diva Mei Lanfang in Moscow, where Eisenstein was putting his work on film in the attached). He wonders why the Biblical phrase "pluck out the eye that offends thee" is so much more "gestic" and horrifying the way that it is translated into German by Martin Luther ("If thine eye offend thee...pluck it OUT!"). I think this is the "indexicality" that Greg is really interested in: not the pure "I experience" of sensation but the way that "I experience" goes out to "we experience" and then returns to an "I experience" and alchemically transforms it into something new, wine from water. It's not primordially an "I experience" but an "I experience" which is now an individuation of a social emotion. Brecht describes how workers parading through Berlin on Christmas eve are chanting "Wir haben HUNG-ER!" and some of them actually supplement this with "Helft euch sel-ber, wahlt Thalmann!" ("Help yourselves--vote Thalmann", the then candidate of the German Communist Party). Incredibly, I just discovered that this is actually a children's song: We have hunger, hunger, hunger Have hunger, hunger hunger Have hunger, hunger hunger Have thirst. If we don't get something, get, get, get We'll eat flies, flies, flies We'll eat flies, flies, flies >From the wall. If they don't taste good, taste, taste We'll eat snails, snails, snails, We'll eat snails, snails, snails, >From the forest. If they don't last, last, last We'll eat corpses, corpses, corpses We'll eat corpses, corpses, corpses >From the grave. If they don't suffice, suffice, suffice We'll eat snakes, snakes, snakes We'll eat snakes, snakes, snakes >From the forest. (Notice that the tendency of German and French to make pains and lacks into virtual entities that you can possess and be dispossessed of makes the song much more gestic and indexical, because it allows parallelism of "hunger" with "flies", "snails", "corpses" and "snakes".. Note also that it would be far more gestic to put the verse about corpses at the end...) David Kellogg (In this clip, Eisenstein films Mei Lanfang showing us the great heroine Mui Guiying who challenges an enemy general to battle and falls in love with him mid-struggle. Notice how much you can understand "gestically"..) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nlf5LW_nrQ dk On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 7:32 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: > ?And funny that, in addition to stumbling across David's review of > Volosinov that I just posted, I also just happened to have a tab open to > this conversation between David and me in August of 2009: > > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2009_08.dir/msg00054.html > > History repeats itself. All the more the less you remember (but are > archived). > > Also, just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that there is no such think as > "privileged access", I'm simply suggesting that it may be a > cultural-historically peculiar phenomena and thus one worth being careful > about while also asking tough questions about it. I think the most > important question remains "what is it that we are gaining privileged > access to?" (and to jump ahead of myself, in the end, I think that this is > a Schroedinger's cat moment where access to the thing is, in part, the > constitution of the thing being accessed). > > -greg? > p.s. has anyone heard anything about Tony Whitson lately? I just realized > how much I miss his snide and biting comments. > > > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 4:09 PM, James Ma wrote: > > > Perhaps I should say this was my privileged access because when I saw > > Volosinov in Greg's message it immediately reminded me of the link > between > > his inner sign and the notion of privileged access. > > > > James > > > > 2017?10?31? ??9:50?"James Ma" ??? > > > > I'm inclined to think Volosinov's inner sign resembles privileged access > - > > both are located within oneself, inaccessible for other people. > > > > James > > > > On 31 October 2017 at 20:36, Greg Thompson > > wrote: > > > > > and for those curious about Volosinov, here is a great review of one of > > > Volosinov's works, Marxism and the Philosophy of Language (it happens > to > > be > > > the one that I was referring to with the mention of hunger): > > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1473-4192. > 2009.00210.x/full > > > > > > -greg > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Greg Thompson < > > greg.a.thompson@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > David, > > > > > > > > I'd like to resist some of the individualism and internalism implied > by > > > > your notion of "privileged access". (and I suspect that this capacity > > > > presupposes "guess what I'm thinking" kinds of games, and these are > > WEIRD > > > > phenomena in as much as they aren't culturally universal - in some > > > cultural > > > > contexts they are seen to be rude!). > > > > > > > > To put my concern slightly differently and into questions: > > > > 1. What exactly is it that one has "privileged access" to? > > > > 2. Are there really no times in which we can have a feeling that is > > > > someone else's? Can a child's fear not be the mother's fear? > > > > 3. Are our feelings all ours? and not of others? (Here I'm thinking > of > > > the > > > > experience of watching my children be socialized into feelings by > > seeing > > > > what kinds of emotional expressions lead to what kinds of practical > > > > outcomes (and here refer back to #1). But I'm also thinking of > > > Volosinov's > > > > notion of behavioral ideology - a feeling of hunger is something > > > different > > > > when shared by thousands of others). > > > > 4. What is inside (and privileged) and what is outside (and not?)? > > > > > > > > Anyway, that's a bit of a mess, philosophically and otherwise, but > > seems > > > > like questions very relevant to thinking about Vygotsky in the vein > of > > > > Hegel/Marx and attempts to transcend simple dualisms of > subject/object, > > > > inside/outside, individual/society, etc. > > > > > > > > Hope you are well wherever you may be > > > > and may my well-being be your well-being... > > > > > > > > -greg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 3:35 PM, David Kellogg > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> I think that when your grandson feels fear, what the child feels is > > his > > > >> own fear and not your fear. As you point out, what is communicated > is > > a > > > >> vague uneasiness and not urgent and immediately actionable thought > > "I'm > > > >> afraid that my grandson is going to electrocute himself" or even > > > "Grandpa > > > >> is afraid that I am going to electrocute myself". I think that when > > > Alan > > > >> Bennet's mother sees the cow, what she feels is the sensation of > > seeing > > > >> shapes and colors and remembering seeing such patterns in some > > concrete > > > >> context and not the precise location of a specifiable semantic > > address. > > > So > > > >> it seems to me that Wittgenstein is confirmed and not confounded. > > > >> > > > >> Vygosky says that when a wild goose is startled and the whole flock > > > takes > > > >> wing, we should call it "contamination' rather than "communication". > > > What > > > >> is "communicable" here is symptom not cause. The first goose is > afraid > > > of > > > >> something and not because the other geese are afraid. The other > geese > > > are > > > >> not afraid of whatever it was that startled the first goose; they > are > > > >> afraid because the first goose is afraid, and that is all. > > > >> > > > >> If you have a cold and sneeze, and I am sneezing because of the > pepper > > > on > > > >> my pickle sandwich, then I cannot say that I have caught your cold. > > > There > > > >> is a well-known joke which makes the same point: if you scream in a > > > >> theatre, everybody tells you to shut up, but if you scream on an > > > airplane > > > >> they all join in. In neither case, however, is there a feeling > > > >> communicated: in both cases, the only thing being communicated was > the > > > >> fact > > > >> of screaming, not the emotion that gave rise to it. > > > >> > > > >> It makes a difference to an undamaged human brain. Here's Dr. Adolfo > > > >> Garcia > > > >> demonstrating that there are good neurological reasons why you can > say > > > "My > > > >> grandson ate breakfast" and even "My grandson felt/thought that it > was > > > >> time > > > >> for breakfast'" but you cannot say "My grandson ate that it was time > > for > > > >> breakfast". Mental processes are one thing, and material processes > > are > > > >> another: a human brain knows the difference, and our languages > reflect > > > >> this > > > >> knowledge. > > > >> > > > >> https://vimeo.com/111374335 > > > >> > > > >> Dr. Garcia has a good paper on this in Functions of Language: > > > >> > > > >> https://benjamins.com/#catalog/journals/fol.23.3.02gar/details > > > >> > > > >> If Alan Bennet's mum confirms Wittgenstein, but Alan Bennett thinks > > > >> Wittgenstein is confounded, can we really say that he has understood > > > >> Wittgenstein? if you prove my point, but you think you are actually > > > >> contradicting it, have we communicated or not? > > > >> > > > >> David Kellogg > > > >> > > > >> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Julian Williams < > > > >> julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > David > > > >> > > > > >> > When I see my grandchild fall and bang their head I ?feel their > > pain? > > > >> and > > > >> > wince even before I hear him cry? even more so, my grandson seems > to > > > >> feel > > > >> > my fear before I actually say anything about it (when they poke > > their > > > >> > finger into the socket), and even though he is too young to have > any > > > >> words > > > >> > for ?fear?? when you see someone?s face twist in such and such a > > way, > > > >> you > > > >> > mirror it and feel the sensation associated with the expression > > > straight > > > >> > away, don?t you? > > > >> > > > > >> > At some level of perception, we do communicate without words. As > > Alan > > > >> > Bennet said in his diaries (when his demented mother pointed to a > > cow > > > in > > > >> > the field and said ?I know what they are but not what they are > > > called?) > > > >> > ?Thus Wittgenstein was confounded by my mother?. > > > >> > > > > >> > Am I missing your point? > > > >> > > > > >> > Julian > > > >> > > > > >> > On 26/10/2017, 11:58, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf > of > > > >> David > > > >> > Kellogg" > > >> > dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > All Vygotsky says is that thinking is represented in the > brain > > > >> > differently > > > >> > than immediate sensation. Vygotsky didn't have access to MRI > > scans > > > >> or > > > >> > computerized tomography. In fact these can and do distinguish > > > >> between > > > >> > verbs > > > >> > of sensation and verbs of verbal report. But what Vygotsky did > > > have > > > >> > access > > > >> > to is the grammar of reported speech. > > > >> > > > > >> > In all languages that I know, it is possible to quote the > words > > of > > > >> > another > > > >> > person. I can say, for example: > > > >> > > > > >> > Sasha says "Obviously, this has nothing to do with Marxism". > > > >> > > > > >> > I can also quote the thoughts of another person. > > > >> > > > > >> > Sasha thinks, "Obviously, this has nothing to with Marxism." > > > >> > > > > >> > I can do this even when there are no actual words, just as I > can > > > >> read > > > >> > Sasha's thoughts without him speaking them. > > > >> > > > > >> > However, in no languages that Iknow is it possible to quote > the > > > >> > actions or > > > >> > the immediate sensations of another person. I cannot say, for > > > >> example: > > > >> > > > > >> > "Sasha stood "Up"" > > > >> > > > > >> > "Sasha felt 'Cold'". > > > >> > > > > >> > When I try to say this, what I end up saying is that Sasha > > > thought a > > > >> > word > > > >> > meaning, not that he felt an immediate sensation. > > > >> > > > > >> > In Chinese we say, "The speaker has gone, and the tea is > cold." > > > >> This > > > >> > is > > > >> > originally a line from the revolutionary opera "Shajiabang", > > > about a > > > >> > woman > > > >> > who runs a teahouse used by communists. In this scene, the > > > children > > > >> are > > > >> > acting out a visit by a Chinese quisling and a Japanese > officer; > > > >> they > > > >> > accuse the woman of communist sympathies, and she says that > all > > > >> people > > > >> > who > > > >> > come to her teahouse have sympathies, but as soon as they go, > > > their > > > >> > tea is > > > >> > cold, and she throws it out (6:13). > > > >> > > > > >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUYvyRMvCNU > > > >> > > > > >> > There is no way, as Wittgenstein says, to feel the toothache > of > > > >> another > > > >> > person; all you can do is to describe it in thoughts and > words. > > > >> > Paradoxically, when we want to share thoughts, we can do it > > > >> > "immediately", > > > >> > because thoughts and words have already made the dialectical > > > >> leap--the > > > >> > leap > > > >> > from idiolect into a sharable dialect. > > > >> > > > > >> > David Kellogg > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > other verbs). First of all, notice that he is saying that > > > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Andy Blunden < > > ablunden@mira.net> > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > That is a tendency within our heritage, David. Some people > > > >> > > take the category of "labour" rather than "activity" to be > > > >> > > the key category. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > As I understand it, "labour," or "production," is activity > > > >> > > in the case where production and consumption and socially > > > >> > > mediated, but I think that activity whose object is an > > > >> > > object of consumption should be included within the basic > > > >> > > category of Activity Theory, even if there are important > > > >> > > psychological differences. Some are also concerned to > > > >> > > separate symbolic activity, such as speech or supervision of > > > >> > > labour, from the fundamental category, giving tool-use > > > >> > > priority over sign use, and use of the term "labour" > > > >> > > suggests that. Vygotsky expressed himself firmly against > > > >> > > this move. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > So use of "activity" rather than "labour" or vice versa does > > > >> > > reflect certain tensions within the tradition. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Andy > > > >> > > > > > >> > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Tool%20and% > > > >> > > 20Sign%20in%20Vygotskys%20Development.pdf > > > >> > > > > > >> > > ------------------------------ > ------------------------------ > > > >> > > Andy Blunden > > > >> > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > >> > > On 26/10/2017 6:14 PM, WEBSTER, DAVID S. wrote: > > > >> > > > Xmca seems to have a workerist tendency operating - for > > > myself I > > > >> > have > > > >> > > always found that the work of generalising (in Vygotsky's > > sense) > > > >> is a > > > >> > > labour of object-oriented activity. But that's just me > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > -----Original Message----- > > > >> > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > xmca-l-bounces@ > > > >> > > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Alexander Surmava > > > >> > > > Sent: 26 October 2017 00:13 > > > >> > > > To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; > > Mike > > > >> > Cole; > > > >> > > ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? > > > >> > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] ???: Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object > oriented > > > >> > activity > > > >> > > and communication > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Dear Alfredo, > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > thank you for your very accurate reaction. You definitely > > > >> noticed > > > >> > the > > > >> > > main thing. Today, in the era of globalization and developed > > > >> > technologies, > > > >> > > the class antagonism between exploited people and their > > > >> exploiters, > > > >> > between > > > >> > > capital and wage labor, assumes the appearance of the > opposite > > > >> > between > > > >> > > different ethnic groups and cultures. Capital itself has > > always > > > >> been > > > >> > a > > > >> > > global phenomenon, and a class of capitalists - a > cosmopolitan > > > >> class. > > > >> > > Putting military overcoats on workers and sending them to > > fight > > > >> and > > > >> > to kill > > > >> > > each other under nationalist slogans, they continued to > > > cooperate > > > >> > with > > > >> > > their exploitation colleagues, somehow continuing to receive > > > >> > dividends from > > > >> > > their enterprises located on the territory of their "enemy." > > > Today > > > >> > Putin's > > > >> > > friends and henchmen who curse the "insidious West" take > their > > > >> > capitals to > > > >> > > this West, buy property there, send their children to study > > > there > > > >> > and go > > > >> > > there themselves to rest and be treated. And today Mr. > > > Poroshenko > > > >> - > > > >> > the > > > >> > > president of the country that was subje > > > >> > > > cted to the aggression of the neighboring state, owns > > > chocolate > > > >> > > factories located on the territory of this country. > > > >> > > > In Russia, and in Western Europe, and in the United > States, > > > the > > > >> > policy > > > >> > > of the ruling classes is based today on inciting against > each > > > >> other > > > >> > the > > > >> > > working people of different ethnic groups and confessions, > on > > > >> their > > > >> > > juxtaposition of each other as superior and second-class > > > >> creatures. > > > >> > > > And as an ideological justification of the enmity incited > by > > > the > > > >> > ruling > > > >> > > class towards working people of a different skin color, > > working > > > >> > people > > > >> > > speaking a different language and praying to other gods, > > public > > > >> > > consciousness is infected with totally false ideas > constructed > > > >> > allegedly on > > > >> > > a scientific basis. All this is not new. One hundred years > > ago, > > > >> the > > > >> > > dominant ideology rested on undisguised racism. Today, the > > same > > > >> task > > > >> > is > > > >> > > being solved by more sophisticated means, appealing to > > so-called > > > >> > "cultural" > > > >> > > differences. Although the old ideology appealing to > biological > > > >> > differences > > > >> > > has not disappeared. Only today it is covered by a new, > > > >> > molecular-genetic > > > >> > > argumentation, an appeal not only to livestock farming, but > > also > > > >> to > > > >> > the > > > >> > > "psychology of culture". > > > >> > > > It is possible to unmask this bourgeois lie, not only in > > words > > > >> but > > > >> > also > > > >> > > in deeds, if we can understand that human development is not > > the > > > >> > ability of > > > >> > > individuals to experience (perejivat?) the meaning of words, > > but > > > >> to > > > >> > be > > > >> > > genuine subjects of object-oriented activity, the subjects > of > > > >> labor. > > > >> > > > If we stay on Vygotsky's theoretical positions, which > > believed > > > >> > that the > > > >> > > human psyche begins with acts of sensation that thinking is > > > just a > > > >> > verbal > > > >> > > "generalization" of the material that our senses deliver to > > us, > > > >> then > > > >> > any > > > >> > > wretched ideologist, with a well-suspended language, will > seem > > > to > > > >> us > > > >> > the > > > >> > > owner of perfect wisdom, whereas a worker or a peasant doing > > his > > > >> own > > > >> > work, > > > >> > > but not possessing the skill of ideological verbosity, will > > look > > > >> > something > > > >> > > inferior. > > > >> > > > If someone is shocked by such an evaluation of Vygotsky's > > > >> theory, > > > >> > open > > > >> > > his "Thinking and speach" and reread this key paragraph. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > "It has been said that the dialectical leap is not only a > > > >> > transition > > > >> > > from matter that is incapable of sensation to matter that is > > > >> capable > > > >> > of > > > >> > > sensation, but a transition from sensation to thought. This > > > >> implies > > > >> > that > > > >> > > reality is reflected in consciousness in a qualitatively > > > different > > > >> > way in > > > >> > > thinking than it is in immediate sensation. This qualitative > > > >> > difference is > > > >> > > primarily a function of a generalized reflection of reality. > > > >> > Therefore, > > > >> > > generalization in word meaning is an act of thinking in the > > true > > > >> > sense of > > > >> > > the word. At the same time, however, meaning is an > inseparable > > > >> part > > > >> > of the > > > >> > > word; it belongs not only to the domain of thought but to > the > > > >> domain > > > >> > of > > > >> > > speech. A word without meaning is not a word, but an empty > > > sound. > > > >> A > > > >> > word > > > >> > > without meaning no longer belongs to the domain of speech. > One > > > >> > cannot say > > > >> > > of word meaning what we said earlier of the elements of the > > word > > > >> > taken > > > >> > > separately. Is word meaning speech or is it thought? It is > > both > > > at > > > >> > one and > > > >> > > the same time; it is a unit of verbal thi > > > >> > > > nking. It is obvious, then, that our method must be that > of > > > >> > semantic > > > >> > > analysis. Our method must rely on the analysts of the > > meaningful > > > >> > aspect of > > > >> > > speech; it must be a method for studying verbal meaning. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > We can reasonably anticipate that this method will produce > > > >> answers > > > >> > to > > > >> > > our questions concerning the relationship between thinking > and > > > >> speech > > > >> > > because this relationship is already contained in the unit > of > > > >> > analysis. In > > > >> > > studying the function, structure, and development of this > > unit, > > > we > > > >> > will > > > >> > > come to understand a great deal that is of direct relevance > to > > > the > > > >> > problem > > > >> > > of the relationship of thinking to speech and to the nature > of > > > >> verbal > > > >> > > thinking." > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Obviously, such an "understanding" of thinking has not the > > > >> > slightest > > > >> > > relation to either Spinozism or Marxism. It is a naive > attempt > > > to > > > >> > combine > > > >> > > eclectically the old ideas of empirical psychology with the > > > school > > > >> > textbook > > > >> > > of formal logic. > > > >> > > > (Of course, I understand that this paragraph needs more > > > detailed > > > >> > > theoretical analysis. And I will not slow down this analysis > > in > > > >> the > > > >> > very > > > >> > > near future. In the meantime, I only note that Vygotsky's > > > >> assertion > > > >> > that > > > >> > > "generalization is a verbal act of thought" is a maximally > > > >> aphoristic > > > >> > > expression of his idealistic position. For us, as for the > > > >> > materialists, the > > > >> > > generalization is a practical act and its instrument is the > > > >> > instrument of > > > >> > > labor. And the initial and universal instrument of > > > generalization > > > >> is > > > >> > not a > > > >> > > sign, but an instrument of labor. So the ax is a means of > > > >> > generalizing the > > > >> > > properties of wood. The ax is, in the same time, a means of > > > >> > analyzing all > > > >> > > the same wood. All this is obvious, looking through the > optics > > > of > > > >> > > Spinoza-Ilyenkov, that is, simply a Marxist definition of > > > >> ideality.) > > > >> > > Theoretical conclusions made by Vygotsky from the results of > > > >> Luria's > > > >> > trip > > > >> > > to Uzbekistan logically follow from the above. The Uzbek > > > >> illiterate > > > >> > > peasant, not from school textbooks, but from his own labo > > > >> > > > r experience knowing how the earth, aryk, water, hoe and > > > melon > > > >> are > > > >> > > connected, and therefore refusing to produce meaningless > > formal > > > >> > logical > > > >> > > operations with words denoting these things, is declared a > > > >> primitive > > > >> > > thinking by "complexes". Simultaneously, any school crap who > > > knows > > > >> > how to > > > >> > > pronounce definitions from his textbook and familiar with > the > > > >> melon > > > >> > only > > > >> > > when it is bought, washed and cut by his mommy, is declared > > the > > > >> > bearer of > > > >> > > scientific consciousness. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Only in this way can we, as psychologists and teachers, > come > > > to > > > >> the > > > >> > > value of instruments of labor, not only for the distribution > > of > > > >> > material > > > >> > > wealth, but also for the distribution of the spiritual > wealth, > > > for > > > >> > the > > > >> > > distribution of the ability to think, for the distribution > of > > > >> > culture. Only > > > >> > > in this way can we approach the Marxist definition of > culture > > as > > > >> the > > > >> > > totality of the means of its object-oriented activity > > > accumulated > > > >> by > > > >> > > humankind the means of its labor. Only on the path of such > > based > > > >> on > > > >> > idea of > > > >> > > object-oriented activity understanding of man we will be > able > > to > > > >> get > > > >> > out of > > > >> > > the deadlock of the semiotic, with its symbolic > arbitrariness. > > > >> > > > Vygotsky's merit is that he was the first who seriously > set > > > the > > > >> > task of > > > >> > > creating a Marxist psychology and his merit can be > considered > > > that > > > >> > the > > > >> > > first real step in this direction was made by his friend and > > > >> student > > > >> > AN > > > >> > > Leontiev.Our task is to continue their mission. > > > >> > > > Sasha > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > ??: Alfredo Jornet Gil > > > >> > > > ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < > > > >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > >> > >; > > > >> > > Mike Cole ; ivan-dgf < > ivan-dgf@migmail.ru > > >; > > > >> > Martin > > > >> > > John Packer ; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? < > > > >> > > haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>; Alexander Surmava < > > > >> > > alexander.surmava@yahoo.com> > > > >> > > > ??????????: ?????, 25 ??????? 2017 15:03 > > > >> > > > ????: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > > > >> activity > > > >> > and > > > >> > > communication > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > #yiv0081188988 #yiv0081188988 -- P > > > >> {margin-top:0px;margin-bottom: > > > >> > 0px;}#yiv0081188988 > > > >> > > Dear Sasha, all, > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > apologies for late response, as we've had some health > issues > > > at > > > >> > home > > > >> > > that fortunately are now dissipating but which have limited > > > >> > participation > > > >> > > anywhere else than home life. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > The real need of democratic pedagogy. That sounds like a > > > >> concrete > > > >> > aspect > > > >> > > to begin moving on to what we had hoped at the beginning of > > this > > > >> > > conversation: how is this all gonna be of practical (real) > > > >> relevance > > > >> > to us > > > >> > > and not only armchair discussion. So, in what sense is this > > > >> 'real,' > > > >> > and is > > > >> > > this a 'need'? (I am not addressing Sasha alone, I am > > addressing > > > >> any > > > >> > and > > > >> > > everyone) > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Alfredo > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > From: Alexander Surmava > > > >> > > > Sent: 21 October 2017 13:36 > > > >> > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole; Alfredo > > > Jornet > > > >> > Gil; > > > >> > > ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ?Haydi ?Zulfei?? > > > >> > > > Subject: ???: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object > oriented > > > >> > activity > > > >> > > and communication Dear Martin,I think that if we're going to > > > >> discuss > > > >> > the > > > >> > > method of Marx, then it is better to do it discussing his > most > > > >> > mature work. > > > >> > > That is evidently "Das Kapital" and Ilyenkov's monograph > > > >> "Dialectics > > > >> > of the > > > >> > > abstract and concrete in theoretical thinking". I am aware > > that > > > >> > there is a > > > >> > > point of view that the position of Marx as a humanist was > > > >> adequately > > > >> > > presented in Gr?ndrisse, whereas the humanistic core of > Marx's > > > >> > theory was > > > >> > > allegedly lost in ?Das Kapital?. Accordingly, Marxism is > > better > > > to > > > >> > study > > > >> > > with the help of Gr?ndrisse, and not with the help of ?Das > > > >> Kapital?. > > > >> > Along > > > >> > > with Ilyenkov I do not share this view.I'm afraid that the > > > >> > discussion of > > > >> > > this topic would take us too far from our psychological > > themes. > > > I > > > >> > think > > > >> > > that we should not get stuck in discussing the order of > > "steps", > > > >> but > > > >> > > immediately put our foot on the first "step" so that after > > that > > > >> try > > > >> > to rise > > > >> > > from it to the seco > > > >> > > > nd, and so on ... Taking into account my not young age, > it > > > >> seems > > > >> > to me > > > >> > > that at least for me, it's time to move on from the > discussion > > > of > > > >> the > > > >> > > method to the discussion of the subject, from the > preparation > > to > > > >> > thinking, > > > >> > > to the thinking as such. Especially because the Method can > not > > > be > > > >> > studied > > > >> > > before and regardless of the study of the very subject. > > Perhaps > > > >> this > > > >> > seems > > > >> > > paradoxical, but it is a paradox only for those who are not > > > >> familiar > > > >> > with > > > >> > > the dialectic of Spinoza and Marx. Meanwhile, instead of > > > >> discussing > > > >> > the > > > >> > > question - what is activity, or what is the psyche - we > > continue > > > >> to > > > >> > carry > > > >> > > water in a sieve, discussing the singular or plural of the > > term > > > >> > activity. > > > >> > > Without a doubt, this topic is very useful for translators > > from > > > >> > Russian (or > > > >> > > German) language to English, but theoretically it is not > very > > > >> > informative. > > > >> > > And besides, we are convinced that Andy Blunden completely > > > >> exhausted > > > >> > this > > > >> > > topic a few years ago. Much more interesting would be to > > discuss > > > >> the > > > >> > > question: what is the justificati > > > >> > > > on to declare Vygotsky the founder of activity theory. > > Where, > > > >> in > > > >> > any > > > >> > > > of his works, Vygotsky introduces the concept of activity, > > not > > > >> > just uses > > > >> > > the term ?activity? in the theoretical contexts in which it > is > > > >> used > > > >> > > habitually by idealistic psychology. ?The activity (or > > > >> activities) of > > > >> > > consciousness?, ?the activity (or activities) of mental > > > >> functions?, > > > >> > ?speech > > > >> > > activity (or activities)?, the concrete activities of the > > > >> > personality?- all > > > >> > > this has nothing to do with object-oriented activity, with > > > Spinoza > > > >> > and > > > >> > > Marx. It seems to me that our main mistake is that we are > > > >> discussing > > > >> > the > > > >> > > subtleties of understanding the categories of activity by > > > Vygotsky > > > >> > and > > > >> > > Leontyev, whereas we need something different. It is > necessary > > > to > > > >> > try to > > > >> > > formulate OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of the activity, proceeding > > from > > > >> THE > > > >> > REAL > > > >> > > NEED OF THE PRACTICE OF DEMOCRATIC PEDAGOGY.It is impossible > > to > > > >> > understand > > > >> > > activity based on Vygotsky's ideas, because there was no > such > > > >> > theoretical > > > >> > > category in his theoretical system of views. AN Leontiev > > > >> introduces a > > > >> > > category of object-oriented a > > > >> > > > ctivity into psychology, but his theory is of little use > > for > > > >> > solving > > > >> > > practical problems too, for saying ?A?, Leontyev never said > > ?B?. > > > >> > Having > > > >> > > proposed the principle of activity as the universal basis of > > the > > > >> > > psychological theory, its germ cell AN Leontiev did not go > > > further > > > >> > failing > > > >> > > to concretize this correctly chosen abstract category.Once > > > again, > > > >> > from > > > >> > > thehobby group of lovers of Vygotsky, with his > > > >> "?ultural-?istorical > > > >> > > Psychology" and AN Leontyev with his "Psychological Theory > of > > > >> > Activity" we > > > >> > > all have to become community of researchers developing > > > >> fundamentally > > > >> > new > > > >> > > approaches to education, based on dialectical, revolutionary > > > >> method > > > >> > of > > > >> > > Marx.For the realization of this dream, it is necessary to > > begin > > > >> not > > > >> > so > > > >> > > much - to learn to listen to each other... > :-)Sincerely,Sasha > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > ??: Martin John Packer > > > >> > > > ????: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" < > > > >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> > > > >> > > > ??????????: ???????, 20 ??????? 2017 3:08 > > > >> > > > ????: [Xmca-l] Re: ???: Re: ???: Re: Object oriented > > activity > > > >> and > > > >> > > communication > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Right, Marx was himself well aware of this difference. My > > > point > > > >> is > > > >> > that > > > >> > > we have begin to talk about ?the start? of Marx?s analysis, > > and > > > >> > about its > > > >> > > ?stages,? but these should not be equated with the order of > > the > > > >> > treatment > > > >> > > in Capital. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Martin > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden < > > ablunden@mira.net > > > >> > > > >> > > nden@mira.net>> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3. > htm > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Of course the method of presentation must differ in form > > > >> > > > from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the > > > >> > > > material in detail, to analyse its different forms of > > > >> > > > development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only > > > >> > > > after this work is done, can the actual movement be > > > >> > > > adequately described. If this is done successfully, if > > > >> > > > the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as > > > >> > > > in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a > > > >> > > > mere a priori construction. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Andy > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > ------------------------------ > > ------------------------------ > > > >> > > > Andy Blunden > > > >> > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm > > > >> > > > On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > > > >> > > > Seems to me that if we?re going to talk about the details > of > > > >> Marx?s > > > >> > > analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the > Grundrisse. > > > The > > > >> > two have > > > >> > > virtually opposite organizations; it?s clear that the order > of > > > >> > presentation > > > >> > > in Capital was not the order of analysis. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Martin > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > > > > Assistant Professor > > > > Department of Anthropology > > > > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > > > > Brigham Young University > > > > Provo, UT 84602 > > > > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > > > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > > > Assistant Professor > > > Department of Anthropology > > > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > > > Brigham Young University > > > Provo, UT 84602 > > > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson > > > > > > > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >