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

[Xmca-l] Re: Why Doesn't Vygotsky Use "Microgenesis"?



Here's Vygotsky's example. An infant sees a pocket watch doesn't notice the
time. An adult sees the time and doesn't notice the watch. A small child
will have some trouble understanding how a pocket watch and the clock on
the side of the town hall tower could possible be the same sort of thing;
an adult has trouble understanding how they could ever be seen
as significantly different.

At some point (Vygotsky says it is early childhood, the development of
speech) we start noticing "inner meaning"; that is, not внешнего восприятия
but внутренне воспринять - значит осмысленно воспринять.  After that point,
the world is never quite the same place; we stop living in a world of
objects and start living in a world of meanings instead.

Vygotsky asks his students to think of the way a chessboard looks when you
don't know how to play chess--you might group the pieces by color, or by
shape,  putting the black pieces on black squres and white pieces on white
squares. But when you start to play, you suddenly realize that a black
rook can enter a deadly relationship with a white queen, and if you are
really good, the possibility of the possibility of that relationship is
enough for you to act on.  That's what the meaning-filled world looks like
to a human who knows how to play the semantic game.

David Kellogg
Macquarie University

On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 11:30 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:

> David and Larry --
>
> Could you expand some more on the distinction between semantic meaning and
> perceptual meaning?
>
> I am having trouble seeing what you mean. :-)
> mike
>
> On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 5:20 PM, <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> David,
>> So when we enter Zaza’s article (exploring prototyping and design
>> methodology) we are entering semantic meaning as a way to rethink
>> perception.
>> Semantic meaning is linked to perceptual meaning but these types of
>> meanings are distinct.
>> Is this distinction you propose explicit in how Zaza is rethinking
>> perception or are you extending or making explicit what you perceive as two
>> different forms of meaning.
>> Your post is intriguing and calls me into wanting to understand more
>> clearly this distinction between semantic meaning (logo genesis) and
>> perceptual meaning.
>>
>> My reason for my saying that I  paused when reading the first 2
>> paragraphs of the article as I felt myself being called into a new *space
>> of reasons* that was unfamiliar and I was trying to get my bearings on
>> rethinking perception.
>> Your response turns us towards *meaning* and semantic ways of knowing and
>> logo genesis.
>> Leaves me a bit disoriented but fascinated to learn more.
>>
>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>
>> From: David Kellogg
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
> that creates history. Ernst Boesch
>
>
>