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

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



Which only means that Vygotsky did not attempt to create a Social Theory, only a Psychology. But in creating a General Psychology, he left us a paradigm for the human sciences. ANL attempted to carry that through to create a Psychology which was equally a Social Theory, but in my view he was largely unsuccessful. But to have created a Psychology rather than a Theory of Everything does not make one an Idealist, just a specialist.

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/


Huw Lloyd wrote:


On 18 October 2014 01:48, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:

    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.


But does ANL refute this? He is simply asserting that experience is derivative to activity, not that meaningful things don't follow from experience.
    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 it is ANL's point that these experiences arise in activity. Note that LSV doesn't provide a medium for their formation, he simply refers to them as forms.

    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.


I would read these in terms of the opening paragraph ("propositions that have been connected to a unified system, but are far from equivalent") and then there is the politics of survival.

Best,
Huw

    Andy
    https://www.academia.edu/7511935/The_Problem_of_the_Environment._A_Defence_of_Vygotsky
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *Andy Blunden*
    http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
    <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>


    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.

        Best,
        Huw