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

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

He? ANL or LSV.
LSV states his aim to create a General Psychology in "Historical Crisis"

ANL, I think the aim of a creating general theory of human activity was always meant to be interdisciplinary. Although for very good reasons it has only ever been taken up by Psychologists, I think it is very obviously interdisciplinary.

*Andy Blunden*

Huw Lloyd wrote:

On 18 October 2014 02:20, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> 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

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 <ablunden@mira.net
        <mailto:ablunden@mira.net> <mailto: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
            hand, maybe because of some prejudice I had, the same
            just went like water off a duck's back for me and I didn't
            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
            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
            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
            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.

https://www.academia.edu/7511935/The_Problem_of_the_Environment._A_Defence_of_Vygotsky ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            *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
                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.