[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Resending LSV/ANL on crisis in ontogengy
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'" <email@example.com>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Resending LSV/ANL on crisis in ontogengy
- From: Peg Griffin <Peg.Griffin@att.net>
- Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 12:35:53 -0400
- In-reply-to: <550CE552.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-archive: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l.mailman.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <CAHCnM0DaPyQj_L8pA64p42MjDsGdR3Gqhi9NwgaO-Ha1T1fZuA@mail.gmail.com> <CAG1MBOGc2-fUkXV4hHCzGP_ScPyG3S9Dit22sHESdedaLmg0aw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHCnM0A4p3nj_YfSMWHGn2+DauX6Hoh-S3v6Ms2Sow8katgZvQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACwG6Dt3Y_zGXEh_c50ViRTFmDbuzS+21q7QV7t3L0q2WHUJ5Q@mail.gmail.com> <550CBF97.email@example.com> <CAG1MBOE48qwfkbepkCRZ5P4SNdx+NVJcc6Nkyr=Fbp=-n7P+WA@mail.gmail.com> <550CE552.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Thread-index: AQL2FYuN7kr+/+LMm2IGIcegvIigywJPCwU6Ak/nntgBhAPFcAJqjdHEAg9eHuwB5sOVf5p3nn9Q
Thinking of growth which challenges social arrangements, Andy, am I mistakenly remembering an anecdote like the following in Leontiev's "Problems in the Development of Mind:" A child not yet going to school and a child going to school have different "calls" on the family to buy pencils or crayons -- might be nice for the younger one but absolute need for the older one.
I hope this scenario is really there (or somewhere not just in my internal constructions] because in it socio-cultural institutions impact one another and pull in the individual's growth while doing it and then there's a wonderful arabesque rebound to the individual.
[Sorry I don't right now have a copy and a way to get to where this might be in the Leontiev book. Hint:) I'm really pretty sure it's far away from the part about trying to teach forearm cells to recognize light! ]
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 11:28 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Resending LSV/ANL on crisis in ontogengy
Huw, what I think is distinctive about SSD for child development, as opposed to adult personality development, is that there is still a significant biological process of maturation and growth going on which constantly challenges social arrangements. This is not the case for adults. An adult can get a job when they leave school and stay in that job for life, except that the *social* arrangements keep challenging the individual.
Also, I don't think all this is best conceived in terms of *cognition* - there are a lot of other psychological processes involved.
Huw Lloyd wrote:
> 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 progression.
> On 21 March 2015 at 00:47, Andy Blunden <email@example.com
> <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> 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 Blunden*
> 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: