[Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented activity and communication

Thu Oct 26 16:22:37 PDT 2017

Thank you for making those materials available, Eugene. I do not believe
that
readers of xmca are generally familiar with Bibler's work, but has long
been the
topic of discussion in cultural-historical circles in Moscow.

mike

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Eugene Matusov <ematusov@udel.edu> wrote:

> Dear Haydi, Mike, and everybody–
>
>
>
> Attached please find the School of Dialogue articles that we published in
> 2 special issues of JREEP.
>
>
>
> Please let me know if you have questions or comments about any of them.
>
>
>
> Take care,
>
>
>
> Eugene
>
> PS Mike and Haydi, can you forward this email to the XMCA group, please?
>
> ----------------------------
>
> Eugene Matusov, PhD
>
> Editor-in-Chief, Dialogic Pedagogy Journal <http://dpj.pitt.edu/>
>
> Professor of Education
>
> School of Education
>
> 16 W Main st
>
> University of Delaware
>
> Newark, DE 19716, USA
>
>
>
> Publications: http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu/vita/publications.htm
>
> DiaPed: http://diaped.soe.udel.edu
>
> DPJ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dialogic-Pedagogy-
> Journal/581685735176063
>
> ----------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ‪Haydi Zulfei ‪ [mailto:haydizulfei@rocketmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 26, 2017 7:11 AM
> *To:* mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <
> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>; Eugene Matusov <ematusov@udel.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented activity
> and communication
>
>
>
> And that BASE also soon collapsed. And Mike Cole told rejuvenators to stop
> huggling for it was just three Heads of States that gathered together to
> announce disintegration in the absence of People. And now on the Website of
> the Cultural Historical Psychology to which both of us subscribe (in
> particular Sasha and Romanov's dialogue which I have preserved) , they talk
> of the state of affairs. And that will be very interesting if one knew if
> the collapse was just due to the belated opportunity of blossoming of this
> NEW BASE.
>
>
>
> It's so strange for me that people by UNITY soon gather unity in base and
> not unity in superstructure. Unity in economics and not unity in culture as
> defined or unity in their take on both. Alfredo and I agreed on
> non-selection of one to the exclusion of the other not as representatives
> of anyone person.
>
>
>
> I'd read this piece. I read it again. And in capacity of a layman who's
> not been schooled to essentially know the difference between theorization
> in syllogistic understanding and dialectical understanding , I will try to
> provide a very modest answer to a globally known full scholar.
>
>
>
> If I wrote not just those measures , I didn't mean 'workering doctrinaires
> only' ; I meant the necessity of going to details as , for example , laid
> down in the article , certainly , not without considerations.
>
>
>
> BTW , I have the article but not Eugene's summary. I could not get it
> through researchgate. I'd like to have it , too.
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
> Haydi
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
> *To:* Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>; "eXtended Mind, Culture,
> Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>; Eugene Matusov <ematusov@udel.edu>
> *Sent:* Thursday, 26 October 2017, 3:45:45
> *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented activity
> and communication
>
>
>
> Amen to the goals you set for a democratic education, Haydi.
>
> It seems that the work of Bibler is relevant to the discussion. Here is a
> summary that
>
> Eugene has made available through research gate.
>
>
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247887341_A_Few_
> Words_About_Bibler's_Dialogics_The_School_of_the_Dialogue_of_Cultures_
> Conception_and_Curriculum.
>
>
>
>
>
> mike
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:19 PM, <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Alfredo,all,
>
>
>
> First I hope there'll always be relief and rest and comfort at home and at
> everybody's so that all of us can feel happy and hopeful!
>
>
>
> Second the attached could get us closer to the key as defined as concrete
> in democratic pedagogy. So far there must have appeared having gone into
> extremes. Experience has shown that sticking to specific ideas as the
> definite , the inalienable , the merely genuine legitimate , the
> uncompromisable , the MY ever truth , even from the side of the most
> learned ones , could in all evidence harm our discussions and lead to
> dogma-nourishing. Marx also explicitly advises more and more reading and
> delving into matters.
>
>
>
> Providing transitional space will smack of rationality wit and wisdom not
> ever-drawbacks , surrender , self-deceit or a trait to one's cause.
>
>
>
> What you have so far referred to on many occasions , that is , what will
> come out of all this process of negotiation , discussion , polemic
> quarreling , etc. is , I think , already at hand.
>
>
>
> Even at the most advanced countries the macrosocial planning and
> programming on the part of the Global Capital has put all educational
> practitioners at a defensive and a stop-to-be position and at risk of
> regression , drawback and humiliation and losing of all that's been
> victorious to this point of time in the hope of capturing and invading even
> our remotest strongholds. It's not that we can summarize it in just
> non-rote learning or a ban on monopolistic aristocratic advantageous
> education or being cautious and on the alert of non-allowance of giving
> permit to learners in theory devoid of practice or the positivistic
> preoccupation and dealing with factual procedures or statistical numerical
> bemusing or qual-free quantification in non-acceptance of plausible
> conceptualizaion and theorization. Our in-class tracking should have a
> glance at and be quite in harmony with what all combatants of the large
> globe bear on their shoulders so that peace , all-embracing equality ,
> brotherhood , non-violence , tolerance and co-existence in exaltation and
> meritocracy are obtained ACTUALLY. Thanks!
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
> Haydi
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> *To:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>; Mike
> Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>; ivan-dgf <ivan-dgf@migmail.ru>; Martin John
> Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>; ‪Haydi ‪Zulfei <
> haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>; Alexander Surmava <
> alexander.surmava@yahoo.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 25 October 2017, 15:33:42
> *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented activity
> and communication
>
>
>
> Dear Sasha, all,
>
>
>
> apologies for late response, as we've had some health issues at home that
> fortunately are now dissipating but which have limited participation
> anywhere else than home life.
>
>
>
> The real need of democratic pedagogy. That sounds like a concrete aspect
> to begin moving on to what we had hoped at the beginning of this
> conversation: how is this all gonna be of practical (real) relevance to us
> and not only armchair discussion. So, in what sense is this 'real,' and is
> this a 'need'? (I am not addressing Sasha alone, I am addressing any and
> everyone)
>
>
>
> Alfredo
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Alexander Surmava <alexander.surmava@yahoo.com>
> *Sent:* 21 October 2017 13:36
> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole; Alfredo Jornet Gil;
> ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ‪Haydi ‪Zulfei
> *Subject:* Отв: [Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented activity
> and communication
>
>
>
> Dear Martin,
>
> I think that if we're going to discuss the method of Marx, then it is
> better to do it discussing his most mature work. That is evidently "Das
> Kapital" and Ilyenkov's monograph "Dialectics of the abstract and concrete
> in theoretical thinking". I am aware that there is a point of view that the
> position of Marx as a humanist was adequately presented in Gründrisse,
> whereas the humanistic core of Marx's theory was allegedly lost in “Das
> Kapital”. Accordingly, Marxism is better to study with the help of
> Gründrisse, and not with the help of “Das Kapital”. Along with Ilyenkov I
> do not share this view.
>
> I'm afraid that the discussion of this topic would take us too far from
> our psychological themes. I think that we should not get stuck in
> discussing the order of "steps", but immediately put our foot on the first
> "step" so that after that try to rise from it to the second, and so on ...
>
>
>
> Taking into account my not young age, it seems to me that at least for me,
> it's time to move on from the discussion of the method to the discussion of
> the subject, from the preparation to thinking, to the thinking as such.
> Especially because the Method can not be studied before and regardless of
> the study of the very subject. Perhaps this seems paradoxical, but it is a
> paradox only for those who are not familiar with the dialectic of Spinoza
> and Marx.
>
>
>
> Meanwhile, instead of discussing the question - what is activity, or what
> is the psyche - we continue to carry water in a sieve, discussing the
> singular or plural of the term activity. Without a doubt, this topic is
> very useful for translators from Russian (or German) language to English,
> but theoretically it is not very informative. And besides, we are convinced
> that Andy Blunden completely exhausted this topic a few years ago.
>
>
>
> Much more interesting would be to discuss the question: what is the
> justification to declare Vygotsky the founder of activity theory. Where, in
> any of his works, Vygotsky introduces the concept of activity, not just
> uses the term «activity» in the theoretical contexts in which it is used
> habitually by idealistic psychology. “The activity (or activities) of
> consciousness”, “the activity (or activities) of mental functions”, “speech
> activity (or activities)”, the concrete activities of the personality”- all
> this has nothing to do with object-oriented activity, with Spinoza and Marx.
>
>
>
> It seems to me that our main mistake is that we are discussing the
> subtleties of understanding the categories of activity by Vygotsky and
> Leontyev, whereas we need something different. It is necessary to try to
> formulate OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of the activity, proceeding from THE REAL
> NEED OF THE PRACTICE OF DEMOCRATIC PEDAGOGY.
>
> It is impossible to understand activity based on Vygotsky's ideas, because
> there was no such theoretical category in his theoretical system of views.
> AN Leontiev introduces a category of object-oriented activity into
> psychology, but his theory is of little use for solving practical problems
> too, for saying “A”, Leontyev never said “B”. Having proposed the principle
> of activity as the universal basis of the psychological theory, its germ
> cell AN Leontiev did not go further failing to concretize this correctly
> chosen abstract category.
>
> Once again, from the hobby group
> <https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=3534254_1_2&s1=%EA%F0%F3%E6%EE%EA> of
> lovers of Vygotsky, with his "Сultural-Рistorical Psychology" and AN
> Leontyev with his "Psychological Theory of Activity" we all have to become
> community of researchers developing fundamentally new approaches to
> education, based on dialectical, revolutionary method of Marx.
>
> For the realization of this dream, it is necessary to begin not so much -
> to learn to listen to each other... :-)
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sasha
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *От:* Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
> *Кому:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Отправлено:* пятница, 20 октября 2017 3:08
> *Тема:* [Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented activity and
> communication
>
>
>
> Right, Marx was himself well aware of this difference. My point is that we
> have begin to talk about “the start” of Marx’s analysis, and about its
> “stages,” but these should not be equated with the order of the treatment
> in Capital.
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net<mailto:ablu
> nden@mira.net <ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:
>
> https://www.marxists.org/ archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3. htm
> <https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm>
>
>   Of course the method of presentation must differ in form
>   from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the
>   material in detail, to analyse its different forms of
>   development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only
>   after this work is done, can the actual movement be
>   adequately described. If this is done successfully, if
>   the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as
>   in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a
>   mere a priori construction.
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------ ------------------------------
> Andy Blunden
> http://www.ethicalpolitics. org/ablunden/index.htm
> <http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
> On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote:
> Seems to me that if we’re going to talk about the details of Marx’s
> analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. The two have
> virtually opposite organizations; it’s clear that the order of presentation
> in Capital was not the order of analysis.
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>