[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: units of analysis? LSV versus ANL

No, LSV is quite right, Huw. You and I can go through the same sequence of events, but if, for example, the events really get under your skin, and perhaps due to past experiences, or to some sensitivity or another, it really shakes you up and causes you to dwell on the experience, work over it and reflect on it, then most likely you will make a personal development. If perhaps on other hand, maybe because of some prejudice I had, the same experience just went like water off a duck's back for me and I didn't care tuppence about the experience and just simply turned to next business, then I will not make a development.

It is *only* the "subjective" side of experience and the *reflection* of "objective" relations/events that forms personal development. Only. And that is LSV's point.

And can I just echo Martin and David's observation that consciousness before language was well-known and foundational to Vygotsky, and consequently consciousness other than language. And Julian and Mike's observation that "the ideal" lies ultimately in social practices, the doing-side of which give content and meaning to speech which speech would lack outside its being part of those activities. Vygotsky knew this, and this was why he introduced a range artifacts derived from the wider culture, as mediating elements, into social interaction.

So ANL is going along with the still widely held prejudice that Vygotsky was *just* all about language. Not true.

*Andy Blunden*

Huw Lloyd wrote:

Hence ANL is right to impute (metaphysical) idealistic tendencies to this
paper of LSV's.  Because to base the development on subjective emotional
experience is idealistic.  ANL, conversely, refers to the relativity of
experience upon activity.  It does not help that LSV refers to his norms as
ideals and that all of the examples he provides are about speech
communication.  It is ripe for misinterpretation as an idealistic paper.