On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Andy Blunden <firstname.lastname@example.org
So this thread does not die ...
You said, Mike, "So I am seeing the same solution to thinking
about the ontogeny/microgenesis relationships by analogy with the
I don't see the analogy there. Phylogeny and ethnogeny are two
(overlapping and mutually determining) processes with two very
distinct material bases, viz., genes and artefacts. But learning
to read/write and development of abstract thinking (and other
leading activities in a developmental ZPD) is not such a relation,
it is a relation between critical phases and lytic (gradual)
phases of development. This is quite a different relationship.
The analogy I would see for something which couold be called
microgenesis would be the /situation/: a concept develops
momentrily in a person and their actions in a situation. The
situation is not a factor in phylo- or ethnogensis, it essentially
belongs to the very short time scale, and its material basis is
activity. I grant that no-one might use "microgenesis" in that way
and no-one may be doing research into that process these days. I
don't know. But the situation is a distinct material basis for
development and one on which Vygotsky did a great deal of work. On
the other hand, I think /all/ processes of development have both
critical and lytical phases (c.f. Gould's punctuated evolution).
What do you think?