[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: units of analysis? LSV versus ANL
- To: Andy Blunden <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: units of analysis? LSV versus ANL
- From: Huw Lloyd <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 02:52:35 +0100
- In-reply-to: <5441C079.email@example.com>
- List-archive: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l.mailman.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <D0659B92.312C9firstname.lastname@example.org> <CAHCnM0Cg=N7ENPJ6ADLn6JrOVoJOhc1pN9gt7E_qGQ9giNN5Sg@mail.gmail.com> <16E632C3-F0B2-412A-99CD-8F24BB22D17E@uniandes.edu.co> <CAG1MBOGeai1svP=H88_1b5DJxu+4-JM+XGxgYN-9+EVHpB_Hzw@mail.gmail.com> <84835D07-C12A-4ECB-A42F-76344E1C27B3@uniandes.edu.co> <CAG1MBOF3=YXF=qLHg_7bcT5nsV-27TSzViUBj4mvLxVGTzz0dg@mail.gmail.com> <1E1201D3-EC65-4022-820E-91B830F49AE9@uniandes.edu.co> <CAG1MBOHjKQ1-ADrVio3OTBQqgq1eJEwjvZ9x+sLgtADq2oc7Gg@mail.gmail.com> <7431C36E-CF7D-42C9-9B55-EAAB35D0F5E5@uniandes.edu.co> <CAG1MBOGER0qaTSQXQSnYH5EimZaQB5H5fXjnneBfsq4R6GUMgA@mail.gmail.com> <5441B8D6.email@example.com> <CAG1MBOGfpG9hmdNFkT1rkMA4WL8p7BWoxXEtPf_rtrtKcQ3tOg@mail.gmail.com> <5441C079.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 18 October 2014 02:20, Andy Blunden <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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.
Does he state this aim somewhere? That might be interesting to look at.
> *Andy Blunden*
> Huw Lloyd wrote:
>> On 18 October 2014 01:48, Andy Blunden <firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:
>> email@example.com>> 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
>> 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.
>> *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
>> 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.