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

[Xmca-l] Re: LSV versus ANL



I do not now about the emoji's, but the other ideas all seem to have merit.
The question is, who will do the work? Having begun 30 years ago, the list
has a certain fusty old structure and set of practices. When we started,
the big new thing was a 300 baud modem.

It would be great if we had a small volunteer assistance committee to
implement facilitating ideas. But one retiring (as in shy) old guy is not
going to get it done(!). I could facilitate if there were helping
hands/minds.

For now, reverting the what is available at LCHC dot ucsd dot edu (which is
a lot!), the XMCA data base there which includes a lot of classic
materials, and relying on the willingness of others to help (for example,
Martin's 2008 article, which I had forgotten, is a good source) will have
to do.

If you do not have access to articles suggested, ask if someone else does.
With 800+ people
getting this discussion, someone is likely to have just what you want.
mike


On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:

> Hello Mike,
>
> Thank you for the heads up. I suppose when the search field is out of
> sight it's out of site.  :)
>
> _An idea_: How about a newcomer's page indicating list posting
> preferences? Every list is its own culture and list cultures are tricky to
> gauge sometimes for an outsider. I could write a lot about this as I've
> thought about it a lot, but perhaps I shouldn't do that here or now, anyway.
>
> _Another idea_: Are there "Famous Conversations" that seem to embody the
> most meaning of exchange within the community? Ones that are memorable?
> Perhaps even a "Hall of Fame"? That would be grand to read and to learn. I
> would be willing to help collect that material together alongside an list
> elder, if that is a worthwhile offer.
>
> _Third idea_: there could be trigger search links for keywords, such as
> "unit of analysis," for example. These could be inserted on the vocabulary
> page, which unfortunately I cannot find from the XCMA homepage even though
> I know the page exists somewhere.
>
> _A last, but fluffy idea_: is it possible to post emoji's here? Or is that
> too trendy and unsophisticated? Is anyone groaning just about now...?
>
> I hope these are useful offerings!
>
> Regards,
>
> Annalisa
>
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 12:37 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV versus ANL
>
> Hi Annalisa, Juan  Et al
>
> At the home page of Lchc, Lchc at ucsd dot edu, there is a local Google
> search of the site. I just googled Marx unit of analysis and there appear
> to be a lot of useful entries. Often that is a good place to start with
> most of our topics.
>
> For reasons I do not understand, people seem to have a hard time
> remembering that the archives are so easy to access! Maybe we need a banner
> or something as a reminder?  Suggestions for greater user friendliness
> welcome always.
> Mike
> On Tuesday, October 21, 2014, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > Thanks for directing my attention to your paper. I've downloaded it
> > accordingly.
> >
> > I apologize to the list if as a newcomer I am contributing to any
> tiresome
> > redundancy; I am not clear whether there is a way to search the list
> > archives or not.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Annalisa
> > ________________________________________
> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <javascript:;> <
> > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <javascript:;>> on behalf of Martin John
> > Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co <javascript:;>>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 9:57 AM
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV versus ANL
> >
> > Hi Juan, Annalisa,
> >
> > The relationship between LSV and Marx is certainly something that we have
> > discussed here on xmca.  My own contribution includes a paper published a
> > few years ago, which I would be happy to send to you:
> >
> > Packer, M. J. (2008). Is Vygotsky relevant? Vygotsky’s Marxist
> psychology.
> > Mind, Culture, and Activity, 15(1), 8-31.
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On Oct 21, 2014, at 10:27 AM, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Juan,
> > >
> > > I agree with you that one must understand Marxism to understand
> Vygotsky
> > clearly. Darwin's theory too. My grasp upon these topics is tenuous and I
> > would benefit to know more.
> > >
> > > In my past, it has been difficult to enjoy dispassionate conversations
> > about Marxism in my circles without the distractions of how much I don't
> > know about Marxism, or how much Marx didn't know about capitalism;
> neither
> > position is helpful. Perhaps Marxism is a hot potato still.
> > >
> > > Certainly there are claims that even the Soviets did not understood
> > Marxism properly and that that may be why Vygotsky had such a hard time.
> If
> > Marxism has been so difficult a topic, why should it be different for us
> > who have come late to the table? We do have the power of hindsight, but
> has
> > this helped?
> > >
> > > For any thinker's work, it is highly relevant to understand the
> > contemporary milieu in which that person worked. That is why I look to
> > historical context to unlock Vygotsky's work, not just his texts.
> However,
> > I find a political specter rises from the grave when discussing Marxism
> and
> > kills all prospects before understanding can begin. It is perplexing. I
> > wonder if it is why Vygotsky will remain elusive to us post-moderns.
> > >
> > > I wish I could read the Castorina & Baquero paper, but I cannot read
> > Spanish very well. Would it be asking too much of you to list the
> relevant
> > points made in that paper? I would very much be interested!
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Annalisa
> > > ________________________________________
> > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <javascript:;> <
> > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <javascript:;>> on behalf of Juan
> Duarte <
> > juanma.duarte@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:39 AM
> > > To: ablunden@mira.net <javascript:;>; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV versus ANL
> > >
> > > I´m sorry for couldn´t answer -neither red all the messages-
> previously.
> > > But what i was reffering was precisely the fact that the "unit of
> > analysis"
> > > in Vigotsky is not understandable without taking Marx and Engels
> method,
> > as
> > > Vygotsky himself writes, for example, in his manuscript The historical
> > > meaning of the chrisis in psychology.
> > > There´s is the need of psychology´s own Das Kapital. And the units of
> > > analisis in LV are built in a dialectical way. So, it´s -for me, at
> > least-
> > > surprising to read so much about the marxist psychologist, and
> preciselly
> > > about method, and very few comments about the fact he was marxist. To
> > > understand the concept of "unit of analysis" is to know, for example,
> the
> > > method of Das Kapital, where Marx takes the value as a cell, unit of
> > > diverse and opposits, change value and use value, wich cannot be
> > separated
> > > without loosing the whole. So is the use of Meaning (unit of though and
> > > language), for example.
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, that´s my point. And know that there are many that thake this
> point
> > > of view. Andy, for example.
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot for the fruitful interchange.
> > > I send you, if anyone is interested, an article about the marxism in LV
> > (in
> > > spanish). Here, in Argentina, Jose Castorina and Ricardo Baquero have
> > > worked through this line, in a very interesting work.
> > > Juan Duarte (Argentina).
> > >
> > > 2014-10-20 21:08 GMT-03:00 Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> > <javascript:;>>:
> > >
> > >> Returning to Leontyev's critique of Vygotsky, ANL claimed that
> > >> perezhivanie, as a manifestation of the whole personality, cannot be
> the
> > >> determinant of personality, because that would be a logical circle.
> But
> > it
> > >> seems to me that ANL failed to understand how Vygotsky’s analysis by
> > units
> > >> allows him to avoid the reductionism into which ANL then ventures. If
> a
> > >> complex process is to be explained by something _else_, then its
> > analysis
> > >> is _reduced_  to the analysis of that something else. Analysis by
> units
> > >> allows Vygotsky to avoid reductionism because the analysis begins
> from a
> > >> concept of the whole complex process represented in a unit, not the
> > whole,
> > >> but a small fragment of the whole, such that the whole can be seen as
> > being
> > >> made up of very many such fragments only. Absent Vygotsky's method of
> > >> analysis by units, and Leontyev's Activity Theory is in danger of
> > >> collapsing to a reductionism that actually explains nothing.
> > >>
> > >> Andy
> > >>
> > >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> *Andy Blunden*
> > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with an
> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
>
>


-- 
It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with an
object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.