Re: [xmca] Operations

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

That is a fascinating text, Andy. but both the terms activity and operation
appear to wobble in their usages/meaning over the course of the text. Its a
really interesting question. In in beginning was the dead as an underlying
assumption that carries a lot with it!
mike

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 9:02 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:

> That's great Andy. thanks.
> Is this what you were referring to, Manfred?
> mike
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
>> Mike, I attach pp 154-180 from A N Leontyev's "Development of Mind" where
>> he introduces the concept of "operation" as part of a "second stage of
>> evolution of the psyche".
>>
>> Full text at http://www.erythrospress.com/**store/leontyev.html<http://www.erythrospress.com/store/leontyev.html>
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> mike cole wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, thanks Andy: OPERATIONS are something like automated actions,
>>> subject to conditions not goals.
>>> mike
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:
>>> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     "operations", you mean.
>>>     a
>>>     mike cole wrote:
>>>
>>>         What is your understanding of this issue, Manfred. In the text
>>>         most used by Americans, *actions*
>>>         are something like automated actions, subject to condions not
>>>         goals. Components of actions.
>>>
>>>         What does it mean, ontogenetically, for operations to preceed
>>>         actions? How does this relate to the classic Leontiev
>>> formulation?
>>>
>>>         Mike
>>>
>>>         On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Andy Blunden
>>>         <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
>>>         <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>             Michael, here is what Manfred said in his message:
>>>
>>>                "A young infant has not already established a
>>>         goal-driven level of
>>>                actions. In the first weeks one can observe the
>>>         acquisition of
>>>             first
>>>                operations and of first expectations what should
>>>         happen. But these
>>>                expectations are not yet represented as a mental image
>>>         about the
>>>                desired future states. This is the product of the
>>>         acquisition of a
>>>                sign system which enables the person to evoke and
>>>          imagine a future
>>>                state in the here and now and to start to strive for
>>>         it. And for
>>>                this starting point, not only to imagine different
>>>         future states,
>>>                but also to select one of them and to start to strive
>>>         for it,
>>>                emotional processes come into play that color one of
>>>         the imagined
>>>                future state e.g. in a state worth striving for and
>>>         that mobilize
>>>                the executive power to start striving for it. However,
>>>         the ability
>>>                to form such notions of goals and to transform them
>>>         into actions is
>>>                not something that occurs automatically. It emerges in
>>>         a long-drawn
>>>                ontogenetic learning process in which the attainment of
>>>         goals
>>>                through actions is tried, tested, and increasingly
>>>         optimized."
>>>             I make no claim to be a psychologist, Michael, but it always
>>>             seemed to me that ascribing a knowledge of the world to
>>>         neonates
>>>             would be a hard position to sustain. We have to find some
>>>         other
>>>             way of understanding the behaviour of neonates and infants
>>>         other
>>>             than presuming that they form a goal and then take
>>> appropriate
>>>             premeditated action to realise that goal.
>>>
>>>             An "operation" is a form of behaviour which has the
>>>         potential to
>>>             be transformed into an action, that is, for the subject to
>>>         become
>>>             consciously aware of the behaviour and subject it to
>>> conscious
>>>             control. So at first I think we have to say that the neonate
>>>             smiles, moves its hands around, pouts, squeezes, etc, etc.,
>>>             without first forming the idea "I think I will smile at this
>>>             woman, and she might give me some more food" or any such
>>>         thing.
>>>             But after the relevant stimuli have been repeatedly
>>>         accompanied by
>>>             the various kinds of responses which adult carers provide
>>>         to the
>>>             child and the successful satisfaction of the stimuli, the
>>>         child
>>>             might begin to associate the behaviour with an object,
>>>         accomodate
>>>             its behaviour to the social world around them, and what
>>>         began as
>>>             an operation may be transformed into an action. Otherwise,
>>>         I think
>>>             we are imply a hell of a lot about innate knowledge!
>>>
>>>             Andy
>>>
>>>             Glassman, Michael wrote:
>>>
>>>                 .... But I also I think disagree with Andy to some
>>>         extent.  Do
>>>                 infants simply engage in operations?  Is that
>>>         possible? Isn't
>>>                 there an action tied to every operation, or else why
>>>         is the
>>>                 infant doing it.  I think infants definitely do react to
>>>                 stimuli (feedback I think can be define through
>>>         information
>>>                 processing but it can also perhaps be defined through
>>>         social
>>>                 cognitive theory which is more behavior oriented).
>>>          But when
>>>                 they react don't they have an aim of some type?  It
>>>         might be
>>>                 very rudimentary but it is an aim and the child is
>>>         developing
>>>                 operations to meet those aims (it also seems to me
>>>         that there
>>>                 are much fuzzier boundaries between operations and
>>>         actions at
>>>                 this point).
>>>
>>>
>>>             ______________________________**____________
>>>             _____
>>>             xmca mailing list
>>>             xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>         <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
>>>             http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     --     ------------------------------**
>>> ------------------------------**------------
>>>     *Andy Blunden*
>>>     Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <
>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/**>
>>>     Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
>>>     http://marxists.academia.edu/**AndyBlunden<http://marxists.academia.edu/AndyBlunden>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>> ------------
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
>> http://marxists.academia.edu/**AndyBlunden<http://marxists.academia.edu/AndyBlunden>
>>
>> __________________________________________
>> _____
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>>
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca