[Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented activity and communication
Andy Blunden
ablunden@mira.net
Sat Oct 14 17:49:27 PDT 2017
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 <ablunden@mira.net> 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 <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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