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

[Xmca-l] Re: ZPD and DST!



My 2 cents ...

1. Both Hegel and C. S. Peirce promoted mediation not only as essentially ubiquitous, but as *generative*, in the sense that since every relation is mediated, every new relation generates a new (mediating) relation. It is a method of enquiry which is forever uncovering new relations. I would call this the methodological aspect of mediation. To fail to enquire into mediation is effectively to close off enquiry and settle for some kind of dichotomy or taxonomy.

2. Vygotsky's *artefact mediation*, is a distinctive type of mediation, to which other approaches to mind are largely blind. Artefact mediation is not the answer to every problem of psychology. And it wasn't for Vygotsky either.

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy
http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
On 31/03/2017 8:44 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote:
The title has a somewhat oxymoronic flavour to it, Alfredo.  Theorising
gets more interesting when it consists of a minimum of a 3-term system, and
in such a system one term can always be indexed as a mediating one in
relation to the other two.  All the problems arise when these terms are
reduced to 2-term systems (formal logic, statistical associations,
descriptions based upon typed categories) in which the mediators are
elements of a non-unitary analysis.

The issues of misuse of 'mediators' as elements rather than as part of a
unit is structurally similar to applying formal logic categories such as
"every" and "there exists" to thinking in terms of complexes, in which
these phrases merely limit the (1 term) bonding rather than applying to the
(2 term) hierarchical constructs that they are about.  In LSV Vol. 1 we
have a 3+ term analysis (dialectic) of the development of 1-term thinking
(complexes) towards 2-term thinking (formal logic).

Best,
Huw

On 31 March 2017 at 06:21, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no> wrote:

Thanks a lot for sharing the article, Michael. And yes, considering those
copy-distribution issues is important in a forum like this. Is nice to be
able to check with you/us authors on how to best share our work.

On the issue of Theorizing with/out mediators, Huw, in the article we do
recognize the viability of the option you suggest: not dismissing but
pursuing an 'adequate' (or 'more developed'  that may mean) understanding
of the concept. Still, we recommend the other route, and this is part of my
view.

I think the problem concerns a confusion between treating mediation as a
sort of universal premise that 'applies' to everything or as an analytical
concept that 'explains' everything. For example, David K. in his post
treats the phrase that 'if mediation explains everything then it explains
nothing' as being analog to the sentence 'if perception applies to all
visible phenomena then it applies to none of them.' 'Applies' and
'Explain', however, seem two very different words to me. You may want to
say that mediation applies to all and every human action/relation. But then
this is not to say that you are explaining any of them. As I view it,
mediation should not be thought of as an analytical unit in the same sense
that perezhivanie is, for it is not a concrete unit. In fact, following on
David's example, *perception* can indeed be accounted for if you develop
and further understand the category perezhivanie. And still, you will not
want to use perezhivanie to account for every and any aspect of human
existence. Nor every instance of 'human(ing)' will be perezhivanie (unless
you reserve the term 'human' to a very specific set of all the things we
human-looking animals do.).

Alfredo


________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
on behalf of mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
Sent: 31 March 2017 02:38
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ZPD and DST!

Thanks Michael.
Establishing fair use in the xmca community seems an important task.

Your solution works given current uncertainties.

mike

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Mike, all,
Because I don't know what big companies can do to us if we violate signed
copyright release, I am more than hesitant to send the type-set version
they published. However, I am appending the final version of the
manuscript
that prior to acceptance.
Cheers,
Michael


------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
Applied Cognitive Science
MacLaurin Building A567
University of Victoria
Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>

New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
<https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-
mathematics-of-mathematics/>*

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 5:09 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:

Michael --

XMCA has been operating as an educational collective among whom
relevant
written materials are circulated as they are needed for the the
members'
education.

Would it incur Springer's wrath to make the paper directly available?

mike

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all, I did not realize that my reference wasn't updated. The paper
is
here:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12124-016-9376-0

and by personal request Alfredo or I will mail a copy to those not
operating at a uni with access to Springer Link.

Michael

------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
Applied Cognitive Science
MacLaurin Building A567
University of Victoria
Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>

New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
<https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-
mathematics-of-mathematics/>*

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi David, you will disagree even more with this one:


Roth, W.-M., & Jornet, A. (in press). Theorizing with/out
"mediators."
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science.

But people like Feliks Mikhailov, and also Ekaterina Zavershneva
indicate
that toward the end of his life, Vygotsy was moving away from
mediation.
We
give an extended argument for theorizing without mediators in the
article.
But I hope you understand that I am not out to interpret and find
out
what
Vygotsky really said even if he did not say it. I think you are
well
positioned to do THAT kind of research. I want to move on. And,
frankly,
I
have no clue what people are saying when they write that something
is
mediated. It seems to me that they are hiding or refraining from
going
after what I am interested in. I am not interested in knowing that
a
tool
mediates something. I am interested in what the tool actually does,
what
are the events in which tools participate, shape people and get
shaped
by
them.

In the end, all this is about finding suitable discourses, and
descriptions, for doing the kinds of things we want to do.

m




------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
Applied Cognitive Science
MacLaurin Building A567
University of Victoria
Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/
faculty/mroth/>
New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
<https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-
mathematics-of-mathematics/>*
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 2:22 PM, David Kellogg <
dkellogg60@gmail.com
wrote:

I think the Roth article I would recommend isn't the editorial,
but
rather
this one:

Roth, W-M. 2007. On Mediation: Towards a Cultural Historical
Understanding.
Theory and Psychology 17 (5): 655-680.

There's a lot I disagree with in this paper (e.g. I disagree with
the
idea
that if mediation "explains" everything then it explains
nothing--it
is
like saying that if perception applies to all visible phenomena
then
it
applies to none of them). But here's why I prefer it to Saeed's
paper:
a) Roth gets to concrete examples from direct experience almost
immediately
(fish feeding, on p. 656). This gives me something to go back to
when
I
get
lost in abstraction, and I need it.

b) Instead of using Theory A to illuminate Theory B, Roth goes
back
into
the historical origins of Theory A and discovers, immanently,
Theory
B,
C,
etc.. This has two advantages: it avoids chalk-and-cheese
eclecticism,
and
it helps me understand how Theory A was formed in the first place.
With
Saeed's paper, I find myself missing: 1) an account of the
CRITICAL
DISTINCTIONS between the two theories, 2) an explanation of how
each
MAKES
UP for what the other lacks, and 3) some argument for long term
COMPATABILITY, some explication of why the emulsion will not
re-separate,
like vinegar and oil.

c) For Vygotsky--no, for mediation more generally--the key problem
is
volition, free will, choice. Vygotsky once said that the most
interesting
problem in the whole of psychology, bar none, is what a human
being
would
really do in the situation of Buridan's donkey (that is a
situation
of
volition, of free will, of choice where the outcomes were either
apparently
equal or equally unknown). This isn't true of DST, which has, as
Saeed
admits, an "emergentist" account of volition (to put it
uncharitably,
handwaving and magic). At the very least, choice is late emerging
in a
DST
account, and that makes, for example, the child's early and
successful acquisition of speech very hard to explain.

That said, Saeed--I DID appreciate the part on p. 86 where you
remind
us
that learning and development are distinct but linked. As
Wolff-Michael
says, the point has been made before, but I think that we've got
to
keep
saying this, until people really see that mixing up "microgenesis"
and
ontogenesis is, in our own time, the same kind of error that
mixing
up
ontogenesis and phylogenesis was in Vygotsky's. If I read one more
article
which invokes the ZPD for some trivial incident of learning, I'm
getting a
tattoo that says: "Look here, mate, just because it didn't kill ya
doesn't
mean it made ya any stronger".

David Kellogg
Macquarie University