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

[Xmca-l] Re: Resending LSV/ANL on crisis in ontogengy

As a unit, 'SSD'  should be referring to conditions which are necessary to
go through for the subsequent 'unfolding'.  But SSD as a referent to all
important (and less important) stages can easily become overly abstract.

For the fundamental developmental situations, we are looking for conditions
under which the nature of cognition changes, so milder situations like
career progression are not in the same category.

The way I think of this is that the child's old form of social support is
no longer suitable. Not only is the support deemed to be too restrictive,
but the semantic interpretation that the child places upon the old form of
support is experienced as being 'wrong'.  When the two year old says "no",
I suspect that s/he may sometimes be saying "no, you've got it wrong".  The
child certainly seems to communicate similarly complex expressions such as
pushing an object out of sight, pulling it back and then smiling at an
adult as if to say, "Isn't that amazing, it was still there!" or, perhaps
"Look, I made it reappear!"

An adult version of that semantic difficulty is perhaps evident in the
shift of meanings between formal and genetic/dialectical materialist
logic.  The terms abstract, generalisation, ideal, material, universal,
concrete, unit all have different meanings along with many other
differences, hence the old way of knowing may interfere with the natural


On 21 March 2015 at 00:47, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> I think Huw put the alternative interpretation of Leontyev's words very
> well. There *is* a difference there, but it is not as profound as at first
> sight.
> I don't agree with the cast David has put on my view though. It is
> precisely in understanding the crises as being transitions between SSDs
> which is where SSD is invaluable as the unit.
> In general of course it is true, that a unit shed light on a specific
> problem, and is not the key to everything.
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> David Kellogg wrote:
>> ... he set out the necessity of different units of analysis
>> for different problems (which is why I agree with Andy that the SSD is an
>> adequate unit of analysis for SOME problems but not for the crisis). He
>> says that even in kids like Huw's, who experience no apparent crisis, we
>> can observe that particular periods appear to stand out against more
>> stable
>> periods in three respects: