[Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented activity and communication
Andy Blunden
ablunden@mira.net
Fri Oct 13 17:53:35 PDT 2017
This is the opening paragraph of ch. 3, s. 2 ofДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТЬ.
СОЗНАНИЕ. ЛИЧНОСТЬ
Деятельность есть молярная, не аддитивная единица жизни
телесного, материального субъекта. В более узком смысле,
т.е. на психологическом уровне, это единица жизни,
опосредованной психическим отражением, реальная функция
которого состоит в том, что оно ориентирует субъекта в
предметном мире. Иными словами, деятельность – это не
реакция и не совокупность реакций, а система, имеющая
строение, свои внутренние переходы и превращения, свое развитие.
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
> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto: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.org/ablunden/index.htm
> <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
> >
> >
> >
> > воскресенье, 8 октября 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden
> > <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> писал(а):
> >
> >
> > 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
> <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
> <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
> <mailto:alexander.surmava@yahoo.com>
> > <mailto:alexander.surmava@yahoo.com
> <mailto:alexander.surmava@yahoo.com>>>
> > > Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54
> > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto: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 aparté
> (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
> <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
> > >
> > > И мне
> > > Агитпроп
> > > в зубах навяз,
> > > и мне бы
> > > строчить
> > > романсы на вас —
> > > доходней оно
> > > и прелестней.
> > > Но я
> > > себя
> > > смирял,
> > > становясь
> > > на горло
> > > собственной песне.
> > > Владимир Маяковский
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > Принципы теории рефлексивной
> >
> деятельности<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.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
> <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 (логика полагания
> > предмета), 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.
> > > Формат интернет чата не самое подходящее место для
> того,
> > чтобы вводить столь фундаментальные понятия, потому тем,
> > кто хочет разобраться в проблеме пресловутой «клеточки»,
> > следует заглянуть в не слишком большой английский текст
> >
> https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS
> <https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS>
> > и прочитать его дальше первых нескольких страниц.
> > > 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
> <https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS>
> > and read it to the end :-).
> > > Полный текст на русском ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND
> HUMAN
> > CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian Принципы теории
> рефлексивной
> >
> деятельности<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.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>>
> > > Наконец, краткий текст на русском, соответствующий
> > английскому переводу
> >
> 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
> <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 aparté
> (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
> <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
> > >
> > > И мне
> > > Агитпроп
> > > в зубах навяз,
> > > и мне бы
> > > строчить
> > > романсы на вас —
> > > доходней оно
> > > и прелестней.
> > > Но я
> > > себя
> > > смирял,
> > > становясь
> > > на горло
> > > собственной песне.
> > > Владимир Маяковский
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > Принципы теории рефлексивной
> >
> деятельности<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.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
> <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 (логика полагания
> > предмета), 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
> <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 Принципы теории
> рефлексивной
> >
> деятельности<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.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
> <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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list