Mike, I need to chew over your challenges for at least a day before
trying to respond. But ... like Marx and Hegel, in discussing and
describing the processes he is concerned with, he is finding
qualitative changes and distinctions everywhere, isn't he? Just as in German
Ideology, for example, Marx finds a dozen "stages" in the
development of capitalism over the preceding century or two of European
history; and in the Logic, Hegel finds 444 different "stages"
in the development of a concept. I think in T&S LSV describes about
10 different grades of concept. I see where your "conclusions" come
from, and it is blindingly obvious that they cannot be true, for us, or
for Vygotsky. So where are we falling off the rails, so to speak? What
are we missing?|
mike cole wrote:
Thanks all for the specification of textual origins, they
help a lot.
With respect to bicycle riding which I have been thinking about
while being bus driver and busboy for my grandkids: I can see how it
runs into trouble because chimps can acquire the ability to ride a
bike and LSV's focus on on higher psychological functions. However, it
seems to have a lot of the properties he invokes to hold onto the
specifically human/higher psych functions. If it does not count, then I
guess that the shift from crawling to walking does not qualify as a
microgenetic/developmental change either.
Is that a correct interpretation of LSV? It rules out any
developmental change between birth and the acquistion of language
doesn't it? If so, the scope of the term, development, with respect to
LSV and ontogeny differs from my own views.
Since qualitative change in the organization of sensory-motor
behavior appear off the table when discussing HIGHER psych functions,
might you turn your scalpels to the acquisition of the ability to read
a phonetic alphabet fluently? How am I going wrong in believing that
acquisition of reading is a developmental process in which learning
also plays an essential role that shifts in the course off acquisition?
PS- I will only be online occaisionally in the coming week owing
to travel and ucsd startup. Thanks again for the helpful input.
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 8:06 PM, Andy
to pick up on your comment, David:
(See also Vygotsky's discussion of ways of translating Hegel into
Russian on p. 81 of Vol. 4, Andy!)
If the translator of LSVCW had read Lenin's annotations on Hegel this
passage might hve been clearer. It is a direct allusion to Lenin on how
to translate "aufheben" though it is actually the editor's footnote
which is usually quoted! http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/ch01.htm#f20