On 18 October 2014 01:48, Andy Blunden <email@example.com
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
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.
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
experience is idealistic. ANL, conversely, refers to the
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