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

[Xmca-l] Re: LSV versus ANL



No need for a taxonomy, Huw. We have long batted around the idea of a "key
word" list.
I think the current xmca facilities may make such an undertaking
achievable.... if there are achievers around ready to achieve it!  :-)
mike

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 21 October 2014 22:28, 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...?
> >
>
> Personally, I would say it wasn't "fluffy" enough, Annalisa.  Mental
> imagery seems to be the preferred currency.
>
>
> https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=site:lchc.ucsd.edu%2Fmca%2Fmail+%22mental+image%22
>
> If you keep a list of terms, questions etc, then there are a number of ways
> these could get used.  However, the challenge with a taxonomy here is that
> you won't get unanimity on the big and little pictures, so it helps to
> bring your theories with you and to challenge them along the way.
>
> Welcome. :)
>
> Huw
>
>
> >
> > 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.