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

[Xmca-l] Отв: Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented activity and communication



Dear Andy,
your exact formula: "These are issues of science not theology because everygraduate student or researcher can use Vygotsky's concept of
"unit of analysis" for original research" demonstrates explisitly that so called "Vygotsky's concept of"unit of analysis"" has nothing to do with Marxist method, but in best case is an euristic ruse or trick that does not guarantee the truth of the result. If, of course, it does not imply the successful publication of next article and the defense of next dissertation.
In logic of Marx the initial, the most abstract category is meaningful, not formal moment of theory. Therefore, according to your formula, we should expect from "eachgraduate student or researcher" that he/she will be the founder of new fundamental theorie. I'm afraid that it will take a long time to wait because the number of items that have their own history and their own logic of development is not so much that they are enough for all students and academics.
The fact that such "units" are really looking for and finding in great abundance, shows that Marxism is present here only formally.And again, if you understand the "cell" or "unit" in all seriousness, you have to acknowledge that Vygotsky did not find anything what could be called the most abstract definition of the psyche or human consciousness within the Marxist, materialist logic.To understand this, one should learn Marxist method from Marx and Ilyenkov, and not from Vygotsky. Vygotsky was a remarkable researcher who genuinely wanted to create a Marxist psychology, rather than compelled to pretend to be a Marxist, as Yasnitsky asserts. But to want and to be is far from the same thing.
Sasha

      От: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
 Кому: "‪eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> 
 Отправлено: среда, 18 октября 2017 3:01
 Тема: [Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented activity and communication
   
Dear Haydi, my seemingly "rapid answer" reflects the fact
that my answer came out of 50 years of studying Marx and
/Capital/, so it is certainly not "off the cuff."

Although Marx never used the term "unit of analysis" (only
"economic germ cell") Vygotsky derived this idea from his
study of Marx's /Capital/ and he was perfectly correct in
doing so. It remains one of his most original contributions
to science. I don't know where A N Leontyev got his idea
about having 2 or 3 units of analysis for activity, but it
was a brilliant and original insight. I don't believe that
ANL saw that his idea was prefigured by Marx and Vygotsky,
but I don't know and it is not important.

A study of /Capital /reveals that Marx used two units of
analysis, corresponding to two levels of activity. In the
first 3 chapters, the unit is an exchange of commodities
C-M-C, which elucidates the formation of value in the
activity of the market. In chapter 4, he introduces the unit
of capital M-C-M' which thereafter forms the units of
analysis of capital. When I first mentioned this to Alfredo
I pointed out that Marx's analysis of the uniform rate of
profit relies on this unit, so I followed up with a quote in
which Marx (not Andy) talks of "capitals" and competition
between them in the formation of a rate of profit. One of
the side-benefits of identifying the unit of capital as a
firm, is that it makes it quite explicit that *capital is a
form of human activity*, not something extramundane which
somehow magically expands itself.

None of this is theology, but important methodological
insights which all of us here, who have had the benefit of
studying Vygotsky and Leontyev, can bring to our
understanding of Marx. It is about ideas not people.

This fact that there can be more than one unit of analysis
in a science is not novel. In biology, it is not only the
cell but also the organism which are units. Darwin's theory
of evolution (along with the discovery of the cell, the
founding idea of modern biology) depends on the organism
(rather than the cell or the species) as the "molar unit" of
biology. "Species" is a unit at a third level, with many
species together forming an eco-system.

These are issues of science not theology because every
graduate student or researcher can use Vygotsky's concept of
"unit of analysis" for original research. If all they know
is "Vygotsky's unit of analysis was word meaning" there is
no possibility of using this concept in their own research.
If a methodological insight is going to be useful, it is
essential to have at least several examples of its use to
generalise from.

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 18/10/2017 2:00 AM, ‪Haydi Zulfei‬ ‪ wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>  
> From where I stopped :
>  
>
> --My focus was on rejection of the existence of a
> contradiction between ANL’s use of singular/plural
> activity/activities and arguing that CAPITAL is not to be
> torn up into pieces/parts. Talking of moments and wholes
> does not necessarily mean involving units of analysis.
>  
>  
> -- No, Alfredo. A unit of capital is a firm (or company).
>  
>
> Am I confused? Or can I justify myself in attributing a
> rush for a rapid answer which might be incorrect? A whole
> investment in what is to be proved otherwise just on the
> next post? I mean Alfredo’s “a commodity as the unit of
> analysis of the Capital". This time we should take a firm
> with specific connotation inovatively coined as “a
> commodity”.
>  
> Is not this to justify our previous notes? In such cases
> we say “A hen has just one leg”. At one time , Modern
> State is based on the Whole idea in contrast to old
> Medieval State. At another time , Aggregates are supreme.
> Has anybody seen Leontiev taking Firms Proper as
> Activities proper?
>  
>
> In the USSR , there were NOT firms , only the State. Andy
> does not say here if his State is whole or aggregate. But
> just one can guess he takes it as a Whole. For our
> discussion no problem if he takes it as an aggregate
> taking into account that a whole needs moments an
> aggregate parts. But what is he referring to when he says
> Leontiev takes micro and Molar in one complex?
> Inferencially he might have taken a firm as micro in
> contrast to Molar the more so that he has already issued a
> firm as an activity But But dear Andy if I’m not so
> confused even mad , you said in the USSR there were no
> firms no individual activities for that matter ?? What
> micros then are you referring to that Leontiev too has
> drawn it into his discussion? Would it not be better for
> you to argue that poor L was in total loss of finding the
> other leg of our Hen?  
>  
>
> --Andy—If you are so kind to take this as a moderate
> critique , I then dare repeat if you are an orthodox
> Marxist (also my mentor on that) why you in a brief span
> of time let yourself jump up from a thousand times “I’m an
> activity theorist” to a point of suppressing it as sort of
> a null/void? “Now that the science of Linguistics has
> progressed so far , talk of activity has gone into waste
> of time”. –not the proper quote but at least near to it.
> This was just short of a multitude.
>
>
> I wonder if this one suffices you to be an orthodox
> Marxist for your addressee to be a counter one .
> Incidentally I wanted to tell you there are much evidence
> that you are a Marxist why then you bring up those words
> against Marx? Many years back I asked you : Are you then
> Hegelian? You said , No! I mean at the time also there was
> overtone and exaggeration on Hegel.
>  
>
> --Damn! Commodity exchange is the unit of burgeons
> society... I have to study more! Thanks Andy
>  
> "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist
> mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an
> immense accumulation of commodities,”[1] *its unit being a
> single commodity*. Our investigation must therefore begin
> with the analysis of a commodity"
>  
>  
> This must have been taken from Marx. And please Alfredo ,
> give us the footnote for [1]
>  
>  
> Is not this “immense accumulation of commodities” the very
> Capital? If positive , then the unit not a ‘firm’ but a
> commodity.
>
>
> Because a commodity (not any goods or product for
> subsistence or barter) as to the nature of its definition
> has the antinomy within itself and again to its very
> nature is forced to be exchanged and if my memory helps ,
> Marx even after entering the discussion of the exchange
> phenomenon , returns the discussion back to the existence
> of potentially both relative and equivalent to one single
> commodity.
>  
>
>  
> --Yes , yes . What yes :-) ? There's the 'Unit of analysis
> is a commodity'. … to its roots , to its source , *to its
> unit* ?? …but capital … with capital…
>  
> … just to preserve this for later discussions : ...in
> speech arising in collaborative activity.
>  
>
>
> Your point in the first paragraph is what I was trying to
> convey to Haidy, to see if there is room there for common
> ground between your positions. ​
>  
>  
>
> --Yes , and this was my answer : First my point in the
> last paragraph was not which one is the unit of analysis.
> But that why is it we cannot use such sentences or phrases
> altogether. For that matter, I concluded that wholes as to
> their nature are not susceptible to get torn up. They are
> contiguous phenomena.
>  
> And I should add that I really do not find myself in a
> position to receive such kind favours. Thank you! The
> problem is either I have not read enough to understand
> which I accept generally or that authorities see
> themselves too legitimate to think of their occasional
> drawbacks and then not to see the dwarfs smaller than they
> deserve to be.  
>  
>  
> Capitals are units of capital. The only whole is the world
> market, within which units of capital grow and shrink,

> consume one another and so on. A capital (i.e. a firm) is
> not a "whole" in the true sense of the word, and I would
> have an issue with anyone who wants to treat a firm as a
> "system of activity" if there were any implication that this
> means a "closed system."
>  
>  
> --I just want to ask Alfredo if he quoted Marx and if as
> he or any other folk understood it , the unit of
>
> analysis is a commodity. Presently no judgment.
>  
>
>
> --Sasha arrives! He confirms the unit of analysis to be a
> substantial commodity.
>  
> We should have more of him. Let’s wait.
>  
>  
>
> I read Marx saying the same when writing this in the
> German Ideology:
>  
>
> "The production of ideas, of conceptions, of
> consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the
> material activity and the material intercourse of men-the
> language of real life."
>  
>
> ​And then again, 
>  
>
> "Language is as old as consciousness, language
> is practical, real consciousness that exists for other men
> as well, and only therefore does it also exist for me;
> language, like consciousness, only arises from the need,
> the necessity, of intercourse with other men."
>  
>
> I do not see here some hierarchy of primaries and
> secondaries, but rather immanence, humanity as a
> productive force that has practical and communicative
> aspects. But I am happy to be in the process of being
> corrected about this. 
>  
>
>
> --I wouldn’t think Sasha consciously mixes up exchanges of
> goods with exchanges of commodities Alfredo. And as you
> note ,
>
> it depends on what social relation of what socio-economic
> formation we base our argument .  
>  
>
>
> …an orderliness that is self-generating and irreducible to
> any of the communicating 'parties' –irrespective of
> whether these parties are engaged in any human material
> productive activity or not or if their communication could
> have any relationship to that process generally if not
> locally or temporally--or their messages.
>  
>
>
> Don’t you think it sounds a bit dualistic? I addsomething
> to your sentence please see if you again could confirm it.
>  
>
> I remember the travel by plane all intermittent talk ,
> etc. Those talks were all mixed up with actions processes
> affecting each other as Andy says. One could think of
> partial independence of consciousness but not ultimate
> segregation and separation. This was reserved for this
> moment : Andy : … just to preserve this for later
> discussions : ...in speech arising in collaborative activity.
>
> But you also remarked : activity constituted in
> communication. I talked about it. And about historical
> essential precedence. But now generally intertwined.
>  
>
>
> I read Marx saying the same when writing this in the
> German Ideology:
>  
> "The production of ideas, of conceptions, of
> consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the
> material activity and the material intercourse of men-the
> language of real life."
>  
>
> Is the language of real life here equal to the very
> self-generating independent communication you mentioned?
>
> ​And then again, 
>  
> "Language is as old as consciousness, language
> is practical, real consciousness that exists for other men
> as well, and only therefore does it also exist for me;
> language, like consciousness, only arises from the need,
> the necessity, of intercourse with other men."
>  
> I do not see here some hierarchy of primaries and
> secondaries, but rather immanence, humanity as a
> productive force that has practical and communicative
> aspects. But I am happy to be in the process of being
> corrected about this. 
>  
>
>
> This is also a follow-up from the above. What about 'at
> first'? Humanity thinks and speaks but further than the
> Commune humans as relating to their relevant classes
> either toil or exploit or double-deal staggering between
> the two.
>  
>
> --To our time zone , I began in the morning and now is
> night. Andy’s last message needs a fresher mind.
>
> Now good night!
>  
> I hope this reaches you non-crumbled non-clattered. I
> won't be able to view it.
>
> Best
>  
> Haydi
>  
>  
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> *To:* Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>; "eXtended
> Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>; Mike
> Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>; ‪Haydi Zulfei‬ ‪‬
> <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>; Ivan Uemlianin
> <ivan@llaisdy.com>; Martin John Packer
> <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>; Alexander Surmava
> <alexander.surmava@yahoo.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 17 October 2017, 1:46:24
> *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented
> activity and communication
>
> The idea of producing for exchange being something
> essential outside of a world in which products are
> exchanged is to my mind something as curious as something
> being a hammer outside of a world in which there are
> nails. In preparing the conceptual foundation of 
> /Capital/, Marx wrote the /Grundrisse /and in the
> Introduction he makes clear that production, distribution,
> exchange and consumption form a unity, a whole, and have
> to be analysed as such:
>
> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc2
>
>    "Thus production, distribution, exchange and
>    consumption form a regular syllogism; production is
>    the generality, distribution and exchange the
>    particularity, and consumption the singularity in
>    which the whole is joined together."
>
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden
> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> On 17/10/2017 8:49 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
> So, not commodity exchange, but commodity production,
> Sasha. That is of course in line with everything else you
> can read in Marx, including the introductory paragraphs of
> the German Ideology, and sounds right. Although I did not
> think that 'exchange of goods' was synonymous
> with 'exchange of commodities,' It is a whole different
> thing, and what you are saying is that these are different
> because of the type of relations of production. Sounds
> right to me. 
>
> There are theories that take communication to be an
> exchange of words, or of signs, or of ideas as you write,
> a 'negotiation of meanings' others say. But there are
> alternatives to that too, some of which characterise the
> communicative relation as a productive force, an
> orderliness that is self-generating and irreducible to any
> of the communicating 'parties' or their messages. Led by
> W-M Roth, we have written about this. Taking that
> perspective, and this may be because I am 'only'
> a student, and one much less qualified than the one you
> speak about in your message, it becomes very difficult for
> me to have communication to be somehow secondary. As it's
> been suggested here. I feel more comfortable thinking of
> 'productive activity' or object oriented activity, as
> manifesting both as practical activity and
> as communicative activity; but not first the one and only
> later the other. 
>
> I read Marx saying the same when writing this in the
> German Ideology:
>
> "The production of ideas, of conceptions, of
> consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the
> material activity and the material intercourse of men-the
> language of real life."
>
> ​And then again, 
>
> "Language is as old as consciousness, language
> is practical, real consciousness that exists for other men
> as well, and only therefore does it also exist for me;
> language, like consciousness, only arises from the need,
> the necessity, of intercourse with other men."
>
> I do not see here some hierarchy of primaries and
> secondaries, but rather immanence, humanity as a
> productive force that has practical and communicative
> aspects. But I am happyto be in the process of being
> corrected about this. 
>
> Alfredo
>
> PS: The text by Ilyenkov that Sasha refers to is available
> at Marxists.org, here: 
>  https://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/abstract/index.htm
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Alexander Surmava <alexander.surmava@yahoo.com>
> <mailto:alexander.surmava@yahoo.com>
> *Sent:* 16 October 2017 17:00
> *To:* ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>;
> eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Alfredo Jornet Gil; Mike
> Cole; ‪Haydi Zulfei‬ ‪‬; Ivan Uemlianin; Martin John Packer
> *Subject:* Отв: [Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented
> activity and communication
>  
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Excuse me for the delay in responding to your previous
> posts about Leontiev and Vygotsky. The problems that we
> are discussing are so serious that it takes a long time to
> think about them and formulate an answer. Especially in
> English :-).
>
> Therefore, the main answer I hope to put on the XMCA no
> earlier than tomorrow.
>
> But suddenly the discussion turned into an extremely
> interesting side. I mean analysis of the logic of "Das
> Kapital". It is discussed what can and should be properly
> considered the unit of analysis of both Capital and “Das
> Kapital”, the world system of capitalism and its
> reflection in Marx’ theoretic masterpiece. At least two
> hypotheses have been voiced. The first is that such a unit
> is a separate " business", a capitalist firm. And the
> second, that the unit of analysis is the exchange of goods.
>
> I think that I can hardly agree with both hypotheses.
> It seems to me that for Marx the first, most abstract
> stage of analysis is in no case the exchange of goods, but
> the commodity itself. And not an abstract commodity, but a
> commodity produced under capitalistic relations.
> Therefore, the unit of analysis is strictly speaking the
> very production of such a commodity.
>
> The exchange of goods occurs not only under capitalism,
> but also under slavery, and under feudalism. This is not
> an independent, not substantial concept. The exchange
> depends on the mode of production, and not vice versa.
>
> The same can be applied to "communication" in psychology,
> to the "exchange" of ideas, caresses or beatings. This
> communication does not occur due to certain immanent laws
> of interpersonal communication, but entirely depends on
> the collaborative object-oriented activity (predmetnoy
> deyatelnosty), collective labor of historically determined
> individuals. In turn, the nature of their collective work,
> depends not on the distribution of genes in their genomes,
> but on the distribution of the means of production, on the
> distribution of labor instruments. Let us emphasize, not
> on the distribution of verbal signs, not on ideology, but
> on the distribution of the most material weapons of human
> activity.
>
> With communist greetings :-) , 
> Sasha
>
> P.S. By the way, I enthusiastically welcome the fact that
> our discussion has switched from discussing Vygotsky's
> "units" to discussing the most abstract category of "Das
> Kapital" of Marx, that is, from a pale copy, to the
> original. By the way, in the future it might be
> interesting to re-read the "Dialectics of the abstract and
> concrete in scientific and theoretical thinking" by EV
> Ilyenkov. This work contains an elaborate analysis of the
> method of Marx, in comparison with which Vygotsky's
> methodological reflexion seems to be something quite
> student-like.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *От:* Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
> *Кому:* Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>; "xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu"
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Отправлено:* понедельник, 16 октября 2017 15:51
> *Тема:* [Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented activity and
> communication
>
> Capitals are units of capital. The only whole is the world
> market, within which units of capital grow and shrink,
> consume one another and so on. A capital (i.e. a firm) is
> not a "whole" in the true sense of the word, and I would
> have an issue with anyone who wants to treat a firm as a
> "system of activity" if there were any implication that this
> means a "closed system."
>
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden
> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> On 16/10/2017 11:42 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
> >
> > Your point in the first paragraph is what I was trying to
> > convey to Haidy, to see if there is room there for common
> > ground between your positions. ​
> >
> > Alfredo
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
> > *Sent:* 16 October 2017 14:39
> > *To:* Alfredo Jornet Gil;
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented
> > activity and communication
> > 
> >
> > Yes, yes, Alfredo! But what is often overlooked is that
> > the aim of Marx's research is not commodity exchange (in
> > itself a harmless business) but capital. But he does not
> > *start* with capital, but goes down to its roots, its
> > source, in the circulation of commodities.
> >
> > Compare with Vygotsky's analysis of the intellect
> > (thinking). Word meanings are *not* the subject matter of
> > Vygotsky's research (who gives a damn!?), but concepts!
> > But he does not start with concepts, but goes down to its
> > roots, its source, in speech arising in collaborative
> > activity. Actually, AN Leontyev missed this, as can be
> > seen in his trenchant attack on Vygotsky in his “Study of
> > the Environment in the Pedological Works of L. S. Vygotsky".
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > Andy Blunden
> > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> > On 16/10/2017 11:31 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
> >> Damn! Commodity exchange is the unit of burgeons
> society... I have to study more! Thanks Andy
> >>
> >> "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist
> mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an
> immense accumulation of commodities,”[1] its unit being a
> single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin
> with the analysis of a commodity"
> >>
> >> Alfredo
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf of
> Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
> >> Sent: 16 October 2017 14:22
> >> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented activity
> and communication
> >>
> >> Just to illustrate that I am being an orthodox Marxist
> here,
> >> from Chapter 10, Vol. 3 of Capital:
> >>
> >>    "In the case of capitals of average, or approximately
> >>    average, composition, the price of production is thus
> >>    the same or almost the same as the value, and the profit
> >>    the same as the surplus-value produced by them. All
> >>    other capitals, of whatever composition, tend toward
> >>    this average under pressure of competition. But since
> >>    the capitals of average composition are of the same, or
> >>    approximately the same, structure as the average social
> >>    capital, all capitals have the tendency, regardless of
> >>    the surplus-value produced by them, to realize the
> >>    average profit, rather than their own surplus-value in
> >>    the price of their commodity, i.e., to realize the
> >>    prices of production."
> >>
> >> Andy
> >>
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Andy Blunden
> >> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> >> On 16/10/2017 11:18 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
> >>> No, Alfredo. A unit of capital is a firm (or company).
> It is
> >>> impossible to explain the formation of a rate of
> profit (at
> >>> least as Marx does in /Capital/) without the conception of
> >>> units of capital, namely, firms and the competition
> between
> >>> them. Firms are of course, what Engestrom would call a
> >>> "system of activity" or I would call a "project" and
> >>> Leontyev almost could call an activity. But in the USSR
> >>> there were no firms, only the state. It is perhaps A N
> >>> Leonytev's greatest discovery  that there are both
> micro and
> >>> molar units in any complex process. True in Psychology and
> >>> true in political economy. Whereas exchange of commodities
> >>> is an artefact-mediated action, a firm is an activity, a
> >>> specific aggregate of actions, directed towards the
> >>> quantitative maximisation of the value of the unit of
> capital.
> >>>
> >>> English is not a perfect language either. : ) The word
> >>> "consciousness" has the unfortunate connotation of being a
> >>> mass noun (or continuous substance) whereas it is know
> only,
> >>> of course, in individual "consciousnesses" or "minds." But
> >>> it sounds so clumsy to say "a consciousness."
> >>>
> >>> Andy
> >>>
> >>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> Andy Blunden
> >>>
> <http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> >>> On 16/10/2017 11:07 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
> >>>> Haydi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I think Andy does not mean 'one capital' versus
> 'several capitals', for, if I read Andy adequately,
> Capital is for him not a unit but rather the whole of
> which commodity exchange is the unit. Thus, the germ cell
> of Capital is thus not Capital, or 'a' Capital, which you
> seem to attribute to Andy; just as I don't think he is
> arguing that there is consciousness, and then many
> consciousnesses. So it may be that you two agree more than
> disagree, judging by your last paragraph.
> >>>>
> >>>> Whether his position on singular and plurals is more
> or less adequate than another positions, that I leave it
> up to the discussion.
> >>>>
> >>>> Alfredo
> >>>> ________________________________________
> >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf of
> ‪Haydi Zulfei‬ ‪‬ <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com
> <mailto:haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>>
> >>>> Sent: 16 October 2017 09:45
> >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Andy Blunden
> >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented
> activity and communication
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you David for your explanation! Though for me
> it needs more than one read.
> >>>>
> >>>> The point was whether use of activity and activities
> in Leontiev is a contradiction. Whoever L was and whatever
> he believed in , he was not so negligent to the point of
> posing activity first and immediately after that
> recounting 'activities'. Translation ruled out a committed
> error. Then such a blundering display must have a
> justification rather than a misunderstanding in comprehension.
> >>>>
> >>>> In one sense all things are related. The more so with
> the Monistic View. We have so many corporate and
> incorporate things , two of them so problematic
> communication and practical activity since Descartes and
> we are determined to avoid Dualism and refer and return
> all phenomena to that same thing , the one substance. In
> the actuality of the world , there's nothing discrete ,
> that is , absolutely unrelated. Is that pretext for us not
> to see this unbounded versatility and hues and dues as
> distinct coloring? Maybe one of the ways was for man to
> let Nature go unrestrained?? But man also did not come of
> its own will.
> >>>>
> >>>> The sole way destined or open to Man was of its
> Nature to engage with the surrounding. To deal with it
> sensually and subjectively/agently. Then Man in one time
> interpreted all phenomena as they appeared to him. But he
> grew up further than his infantile period. He learnt to
> delve into matters , go deeper and deeper. With one
> spectacle (plane) he observed how that single substance
> let its attributes multiply themselves into different
> shapes and colors and Modes. With another plane of the one
> spectacle observed the variation of the Modes themselves.
> I mean Ontology and Epistemology not yet separate from
> each other as I used a pair of planes for that matter.
> >>>>
> >>>> Then we usually don't use a nail-clipper for
> alterations and manipulations in Genes. Or devices for
> Genes for our feeding and nutrition. It is then within
> these constraints that corporate and incorporate phenomena
> differ. Singles and plurals differ. Discrete and the
> indivisible differ. Parts and Moments differ. Wholes and
> mere entities differ. A process and a product resulting
> from that process differ. No justification to interchange
> them because of the use of A in front of them.
> >>>>
> >>>> I wonder if this is true for others too. For me it's
> difficult to accept to say "this capital that capital"
> "those 8 capitals united" "capitals of the world dissolved
> into unanimity". If I'm correct in this , it's , I think ,
> because Capital is a Whole , coming out of a long process
> of functions and disfunctions , moments of circulations
> and transient stagnation , booms and boosts and drawbacks
> and failures. The moment of its conception in the exchange
> of commodities up to the discovery of the private
> appropriation of the surplus value to the point of
> harnessing every means to penetrate each tight corner of
> the big World.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best
> >>>> Haydi
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>      From: David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com
> <mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com>>
> >>>>  To: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>; "eXtended Mind, Culture,
> Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> >>>>  Sent: Monday, 16 October 2017, 2:21:12
> >>>>  Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented
> activity and communication
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course, neither an object nor a process is
> discrete (or even, as Andy
> >>>> says, "discreet"). Who can tell me where a mountain
> river ends and the
> >>>> alluvial plain begins? Certainly not Cezanne or the
> phenomenologists who so
> >>>> loved him. Yet a mountain is most assuredly an
> object, just as surely
> >>>> as climbing the mountain to ascertain its degree of
> montagnitude is a
> >>>> process.
> >>>>
> >>>> This last week I've been struggling through the
> "Curriculum Reforms"
> >>>> wrought by three right wing governments in Norway,
> Finland, and New
> >>>> Zealand. Like Catalonia, these are all countries
> where unpopular coalitions
> >>>> of right parties are replacing a much more popular
> but obviously
> >>>> unsuccessful social democratic coalition of left
> parties. In Norway and in
> >>>> Finland, the coalition actually includes the far
> right, neo-fascist,
> >>>> anti-immigrant parties, and in New Zealand it
> includes the ACT, that is, an
> >>>> "association of consumers and taxpayers" whose main
> interest is cutting
> >>>> education budgets, starting by making teachers and
> students fight each
> >>>> other for scarce resources in the form of "block grants".
> >>>>
> >>>> Now, all of these governments are more or less bound
> by something called
> >>>> DeSeCo, which is short for Describe and Select
> Competences. This is because
> >>>> right-wing ideology sees education not as a public
> good but as a commodity,
> >>>> to be judged by tangible results and priced
> accordingly. This presents a
> >>>> real theoretical problem for right-wingers, because
> they ALSO see that
> >>>> "flexible labor markets" and "entrepreneurial spirit"
> means that there
> >>>> isn't any way of deciding on what skills or even what
> knowledge the
> >>>> "economy of the future" will demand.
> >>>>
> >>>> We can see this in the emphasis on "competence".
> Competence is not a thing
> >>>> or a process, and it is neither discrete nor
> discreet. Of course, if you
> >>>> are a linguist, competence is something Chomsky
> thought of in the sixties,
> >>>> an abstract form of knowledge in a hypothetical
> native speaker-hearer in an
> >>>> imaginary homogenous speech community. It is
> "discrete" in the sense of
> >>>> being nowhere and nowhen connectible to performance
> in any way. It is
> >>>> therefore "discreet" in the sense of being
> untestable--as soon as you test
> >>>> it, you have a form of performance, not competence.
> It's like standing in
> >>>> front of a classroom with a picture of a guy swimming
> and trying to teach
> >>>> the expression "i can swim". What you have in the
> picture is not "I can
> >>>> swim"; it's manifestly "he is swimming".
> >>>>
> >>>> But in DeSeCo, you get these lists of competences,
> which are set up as if
> >>>> they were discrete so you can list them on a
> Powerpoint slide and sell them
> >>>> to ministries of education. And the real selling
> point is that, on the one
> >>>> hand, because they are all "meta-skills" and
> "meta-knowledges", they don't
> >>>> have any practical outcome or real commitment to a
> job and a livelihood.
> >>>> And on the other, they sound terribly powerful when
> you phrase them as
> >>>> "learning to learn" or "transversal competence" or
> "meta-cognitive skills"
> >>>> or something like that. Jobs, in other words, are
> discretionary. After
> >>>> centuries of promising jobs and livelhood in return
> for school and boredom,
> >>>> the Western economies have decided that sticks are
> cheaper than carrots,
> >>>> and the thing to do is simply to rule people who
> don't have educational
> >>>> certificates out of the job market rather than try to
> provide
> >>>> actual know-how and factual know-that.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here are my four favorites (i.e. the four that we
> stress in our own
> >>>> curricular reform here in South Korea):
> >>>>
> >>>> interpersonal competence (sociability, the ability to
> 'be alone with
> >>>> others' as Hughlings Jackson put it)
> >>>> cultural competence (enculturation, the ability to
> understand traditions,
> >>>> mores, and norms)
> >>>> creative competence (intelligence, innovation, yadda
> yadda)
> >>>> individual competence (the ability to dress yourself,
> feed yourself, and
> >>>> show up for an interview where you will not be
> offered a job)
> >>>>
> >>>> Vygotsky, as usual, has a better idea--it's a
> mountain. We just turn the
> >>>> DeSeCO PPT upside down. Then we add each
> competence---freedom, creative
> >>>> intelligence, encultured habits and tastes, and
> instiinctive
> >>>> sociability--as a superstructure  erected on the
> basis of the previous one:
> >>>>
> >>>> free will (the ability to make choices that are not
> necessarily intelligent
> >>>> or habitual or instinctive)
> >>>> intelligence (the ability to make choices that are
> not habitual or
> >>>> instinctive but nevertheless adaptive)
> >>>> enculturation (the ability to make choices that are
> not instinctive but
> >>>> conform to the choices that have proven successful in
> the now socialized
> >>>> environment)
> >>>> instinct (the ability to make choices that are 
> responsive to the
> >>>> environment and which conform to the choices that
> have proven successful in
> >>>> phylogenesis)
> >>>>
> >>>> Are theses objects? Of course, if we say so. And
> processes? Well, how else
> >>>> could they have come about? What they are not,
> however, is either
> >>>> "discrete" or "discreet": they are clearly linked to
> each other, and they
> >>>> are all linked, through the lower layer, to
> adaptations ot the environment.
> >>>>
> >>>> And there's the rub--where the rubber meets the road.
> The real question,
> >>>> for our teachers and for our children, is about what
> will happen to them
> >>>> now that these competences can no longer be redeemed
> in jobs. Will the
> >>>> anti-Faustian bargain of exchanging your youth for a
> >>>> stable middle-aged livelihood survive?
> >>>>
> >>>> David Kellogg
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Andy Blunden
> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Haydi, you say "AN activity is not a thing ; it's a
> >>>>> process." I wonder then what is a thing which is not
> also a
> >>>>> process? (I interpret "thing" as meaning "something
> >>>>> discrete," otherwise your objection makes no sense.) The
> >>>>> point is that Hegel does not make this dichotomy - every
> >>>>> thing is also a process and vice versa. That a
> process is
> >>>>> also discreet is important because it is only thanks
> to its
> >>>>> discreteness that we can cognise the process and in fact
> >>>>> only thanks to its discreteness that a process can
> affect
> >>>>> anything else. To speak of processes which are not also
> >>>>> discrete is to speak in abstractions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On this point, when Hegel puts ideas above matter,
> it has to
> >>>>> be realised that for Hegel "ideas" are social
> practices - he
> >>>>> is simply place human practice at the centre of
> human life
> >>>>> and its comprehension, rather than the mechanical and
> >>>>> chemical processes of Nature. If you think that
> "ideas" are
> >>>>> simply chimera inside our heads, then, of course,
> Hegel's
> >>>>> idealism seems like madness.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, all the Marxists have blasted Hegel. As they must.
> >>>>> Otherwise they must end up advocates of Constitutional
> >>>>> Monarchy. But while Marx uses almost every mention
> he makes
> >>>>> of Hegel to criticise him, often in extreme terms,
> it can go
> >>>>> unnoticed the extent to which in practice Marx
> follows Hegel
> >>>>> in philosophy. Of course Marx is not equal to Hegel, but
> >>>>> simple formulae do not contribute to understanding
> the relation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Andy
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> Andy Blunden
> >>>>>
> <http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> >>>>> On 15/10/2017 6:51 PM, ‪Haydi Zulfei‬ ‪ wrote:
> >>>>>> Andy,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Let me first apologize to David Kellog because in
> others'
> >>>>>> wandering and perplexity it was he who in his
> reading of
> >>>>>> Gramsci's prison letters came across this point and
> made
> >>>>>> you not only accept the inappropriateness of Hegel's
> >>>>>> headstand as Crowning every worldly affair deriving
> from
> >>>>>> the People's Heads "Idea" , "Absolute" but also
> >>>>>> intensifying this point with more examples and
> references
> >>>>>> from Engels' "utopian versus genuine socialism" on your
> >>>>>> part. Of course you've been helping us on many
> occasions
> >>>>>> and  you're very welcome for this nothing to be denied.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> At this point we have no problem with translation.
> >>>>>> Leontiev meant it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Suppose that ANL does not know "individual" which
> is very
> >>>>>> ambiguous because in what then one should seek the
> >>>>>> embodiment of the "particular" and if one takes the
> very
> >>>>>> particular as individual , then everything gets
> mixed up .
> >>>>>> Then what about you who stick firmly on individual
> >>>>>> discrete detached activities as an objection to Sasha's
> >>>>>> sole ACTIVITY as theoretical understanding.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As you well know even AN activity is not a thing ;
> it's a
> >>>>>> process. And you once distinguished between GENERAL
> WORK
> >>>>>> ACTIVITY and LABOUR ACTIVITY or VALORIZATION ACTIVITY
> >>>>>> which was quite right and timely though you
> recently gave
> >>>>>> differing definitions in no way harmonious to your
> >>>>>> previous definitions. But the main problem is blending
> >>>>>> clarity in expression with concrete in theory. No doubt
> >>>>>> you're a Fan of Hegel. I should repeat myself :
> Hegel is a
> >>>>>> hero of theoretical concepts. In theorizing , and
> for him
> >>>>>> to explicate the Essence of Phenomena , he begins with
> >>>>>> apparently concrete things as ABSTRACTS finally reaches
> >>>>>> CONCRETE UNIVERSALS as concepts. And here we again very
> >>>>>> surprisingly see you put your finger upon what you
> should
> >>>>>> have known in person is contrary to your own erudition.
> >>>>>> Turning Hegel down as believing in discrete abstracts.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And now to his son's comment : What individual are you
> >>>>>> pursuing? Your Hegel sees phenomena in their relations.
> >>>>>> According to him and also according to ANL ACTIVITY
> as a
> >>>>>> unit of Life is Molar non-additive. He even does
> not see
> >>>>>> operations as single acts. It's a matter of the
> angle of
> >>>>>> vision not detachment and concreteness. If his son had
> >>>>>> talked of concreteness in moments of activity ,
> then you
> >>>>>> were right in your objections and oppositions. You
> please
> >>>>>> give us your last definition of activity here (not in
> >>>>>> lengthy references) so that we can have a discerning
> >>>>>> option.
> >>>>>> So far to remove the problem we should accept
> operations
> >>>>>> are separately and independently carried out ;
> actions in
> >>>>>> their own are carried out ; activities are carried out
> >>>>>> arbitrarily. And these are done to the realization
> of man
> >>>>>> as the ensemble of social relations based on some
> >>>>>> infrastructure.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hegel's metaphor has been thrown back at him by Marx ,
> >>>>>> Engels , Lenin , Vygotsky , Ilyenko , and many
> others. If
> >>>>>> you like to stand above all Giants of Marxism , it's
> >>>>>> something perfectly and absolutely Personal as you're
> >>>>>> speaking out loud! Then why give us so many references.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Haydi
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> P.S. Alfredo! Though you have my previous private
> response
> >>>>>> concerning the matters you pose I see myself
> accountable
> >>>>>> to rewrite them to the Public. Thanks!
> >>>>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> *From:* Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
> >>>>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, 15 October 2017, 5:35:40
> >>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented
> activity
> >>>>>> and communication
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Haydi, partly the problem with ANL's
> >>>>>> philosophy-as-we-know-it is simply a product of its
> >>>>>> translation into English. But partly it is also in his
> >>>>>> philosophy. As Victor Kaptelinin first pointed out
> (so far
> >>>>>> as I know), ANL knows the universal and the
> particular but
> >>>>>> he does not know the individual. And his son's
> comment that
> >>>>>> ANL did not conceive of Activity as being discrete
> proves
> >>>>>> this to be the case. Thus his concept of Activity
> is not a
> >>>>>> fully concrete concept. And this is not a product of
> >>>>>> translation.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As David Kellogg has kindly pointed out to me, it
> was Hegel
> >>>>>> who actually first introduced this metaphor of people
> >>>>>> "walking (or standing) on their heads." Personally,
> I don't
> >>>>>> think it has ever helped anyone understand the
> defect of
> >>>>>> Hegel's philosophy to throw this metaphor back at
> him. As
> >>>>>> demonstrated in this issue (the concept of
> activity) it was
> >>>>>> Hegel who understood that a concept must have all three
> >>>>>> moments - universal, particular and individual.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Andy
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> Andy Blunden
> >>>>>>
> <http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> >>>>>> On 15/10/2017 9:24 AM, ‪Haydi Zulfei‬ ‪ wrote:
> >>>>>>> Dear Mike,
> >>>>>>> Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an
> >>>>>> activist for his concreteness and clarifications is
> >>>>>> crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot
> >>>>>> ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes ,
> Parts ,
> >>>>>> and Moments. He personally provided us with
> examples from
> >>>>>> Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they
> convert
> >>>>>> Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced
> with the
> >>>>>> same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most
> >>>>>> valuable contribution) does not begin with the
> individual
> >>>>>> case in isolation which phenomenologically 
> speaking (in
> >>>>>> contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for
> >>>>>> appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not
> obtained
> >>>>>> because one instance is considered detached from all
> >>>>>> relations and its subservience to the service of the
> >>>>>> Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is
> particular in
> >>>>>> some feature/s. And these particulars are
> essential. With
> >>>>>> other particulars in other individuals they are related
> >>>>>> actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense ,
> this whole
> >>>>>> could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life
> itself.
> >>>>>> Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is ,
> >>>>>> with category and concept only therefore ,
> following Marx
> >>>>>> and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again
> on his
> >>>>>> feet (not that the firmament to that time did put
> "idea"
> >>>>>> on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on
> their
> >>>>>> heads but to put them again headstand thinking and
> acting
> >>>>>> with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just
> >>>>>> with their brains. Then taking all options in
> translation
> >>>>>> even that of a Machine into consideration it does
> not seem
> >>>>>> to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of
> >>>>>> Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of
> >>>>>> activities thereafter. These activities are those
> arising
> >>>>>> from the properties of versatile objects in turn
> arising
> >>>>>> from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile
> >>>>>> needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think
> >>>>>> Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual
> >>>>>> activities as moments with the broadest idea of the
> >>>>>> Monistic Substantial Modes or States in Philosophical
> >>>>>> terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn
> integrate and
> >>>>>> are dissolved into Monism of Substance.
> >>>>>>> Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche
> >>>>>> (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one
> >>>>>> Substance) is already there with the organism
> actively and
> >>>>>> spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own ,
> >>>>>> positioning its due object and moving along its
> contours
> >>>>>> and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to
> itself
> >>>>>> , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and
> >>>>>> bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as
> >>>>>> novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with
> >>>>>> Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with
> a huge
> >>>>>> gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of
> >>>>>> consciousness , now apparently ascending to
> "wording" and
> >>>>>> "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration)
> further
> >>>>>> "communication" as something indispensable and
> necessary
> >>>>>> and inevitable to the realization of life affairs.
> >>>>>>> Best
> >>>>>>> Haydi
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>      From: mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu
> <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>
> >>>>>> <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>>>
> >>>>>>>  To: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
> >>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>; "eXtended Mind, Culture,
> >>>>>> Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>>
> >>>>>>> Cc: Alexander Surmava <alexander.surmava@yahoo.com
> <mailto:alexander.surmava@yahoo.com>
> >>>>>> <mailto:alexander.surmava@yahoo.com
> <mailto:alexander.surmava@yahoo.com>>>; ivan-dgf
> >>>>>> <ivan-dgf@migmail.ru <mailto:ivan-dgf@migmail.ru>
> <mailto:ivan-dgf@migmail.ru
> <mailto:ivan-dgf@migmail.ru>>>; Ivan
> >>>>>> Uemlianin <ivan@llaisdy.com
> <mailto:ivan@llaisdy.com> <mailto:ivan@llaisdy.com
> <mailto:ivan@llaisdy.com>>>;
> >>>>>> Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com
> <mailto:haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>
> >>>>>> <mailto:haydizulfei@rocketmail.com
> <mailto:haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>>>
> >>>>>>>  Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50
> >>>>>>>  Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented
> >>>>>> activity and communication
> >>>>>>> Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.Could someone post
> >>>>>> the Russian text next to the English so that it is
> >>>>>> possible to compare it with the translation? I spent
> >>>>>> several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development of
> >>>>>> Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally
> defeated
> >>>>>> me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra
> rubles in
> >>>>>> my pocket.
> >>>>>>> Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can
> warrant us
> >>>>>> a "true" translation.
> >>>>>>> mike
> >>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden
> >>>>>> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> The Progress Publishers English translation of
> "Activity and
> >>>>>>> Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of
> >>>>>>> Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>    Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal,
> >>>>>>>    material life of the material subject. In the
> narrower
> >>>>>>>    sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is
> a unit of
> >>>>>>>    life, mediated by mental reflection, by
> >>>>>>>    an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the
> >>>>>>>    subject in the objective world.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The
> >>>>>>> Development of Mind" we have:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thus, the principal ‘unit’ of a vital process is an
> >>>>>>> organism’s activity; the different activities that
> realise
> >>>>>>> its diverse vital relations with the surrounding
> reality are
> >>>>>>> essentially determined by their object; we shall
> therefore
> >>>>>>> differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively
> >>>>>>> different] types of activity according to the
> difference in
> >>>>>>> their objects.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses
> >>>>>>> "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The
> effect has
> >>>>>>> been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for
> >>>>>>> English-speakers. It has generally been taken to
> mean simply
> >>>>>>> "category." The second does the same, but in
> addition makes
> >>>>>>> it evident that the plural does not refer to different
> >>>>>>> activities, but to *types* of activity. This
> blocks the
> >>>>>>> possibility of forming a true concept of activity
> >>>>>> altogether.
> >>>>>>> With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your
> claim is
> >>>>>>> simply that "such an initial *category* can only be
> >>>>>>> object-oriented activity" I have no objection,
> supposing
> >>>>>>> that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method
> of units,
> >>>>>>> even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Andy
> >>>>>>> ------------------------------
> >>>>>> ------------------------------
> >>>>>>> Andy Blunden
> >>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics
> <http://www.ethicalpolitics/>.
> >>>>>> <http://www.ethicalpolitics./>org/ablunden/index.htm
> >>>>>>> On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Dear Andy!
> >>>>>>>> I am glad that our communication was resumed
> after many
> >>>>>>>> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters
> and files
> >>>>>>>> and found that the problem of "object oriented
> activity OR
> >>>>>>>> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006
> before
> >>>>>>>> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is
> serious and
> >>>>>>>> it deserves to return to it today.
> >>>>>>>> Last year I was close to being silent forever.
> >>>>>>>> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy
> postponed
> >>>>>>>> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I
> had the
> >>>>>>>> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my
> >>>>>>>> theoretical studies without entrusting this
> matter to my
> >>>>>>>> descendants :-).
> >>>>>>>> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not
> >>>>>>>> understand your question. What means the distinction
> >>>>>>>> between singular and plural number in your
> remark? Could
> >>>>>>>> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the
> >>>>>>>> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my
> >>>>>>>> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not
> coincide,
> >>>>>>>> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the
> theory of
> >>>>>>>> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my
> dissertation
> >>>>>>>> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's
> "Theory of
> >>>>>>>> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore,
> >>>>>>>> having understood the theoretic meaning of your
> claims to
> >>>>>>>> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily
> >>>>>>>> understand the essence of your objections to me.
> >>>>>>>> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev
> and I
> >>>>>>>> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and
> not as a
> >>>>>>>> particular empirical case of its manifestation.
> Therefore,
> >>>>>>>> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one.
> Just like
> >>>>>>>> Matter, Nature, or Substance.
> >>>>>>>> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we
> come across
> >>>>>>>> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its
> >>>>>>>> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the
> >>>>>>>> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old
> >>>>>>>> philosophers and that only the numerous
> individual "atomic
> >>>>>>>> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number
> really
> >>>>>>>> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar
> >>>>>>>> positivism and empiricism.
> >>>>>>>> However, all of this may not apply to your
> position ...
> >>>>>>>> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this
> issue.
> >>>>>>>> Best wishes
> >>>>>>>> Sasha
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> воскресенье, 8 октября 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden
> >>>>>>>> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>
> писал(а):
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'll ask Sasha a question.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial
> >>>>>>>> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it
> >>>>>> stands,
> >>>>>>>> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be
> >>>>>> that you
> >>>>>>>> are translating it from a Russian statement that is
> >>>>>> correct.
> >>>>>>>> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as
> in when I
> >>>>>>>> say "every activity has an object."  But in your
> expression
> >>>>>>>> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural and
> >>>>>> unless
> >>>>>>>> you are a religious person is not something which can
> >>>>>> have a
> >>>>>>>> specific object. All English translations of A N
> Leontyev
> >>>>>>>> make this mistake which has caused no end of
> confusion
> >>>>>> among
> >>>>>>>> English-speakers.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Am I right? You meant "activities" not
> "activity," just as
> >>>>>>>> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Andy
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------
> >>>>>> ------------------------------
> >>>>>>>> Andy Blunden
> >>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics
> <http://www.ethicalpolitics/>.
> >>>>>> <http://www.ethicalpolitics./>org/ablunden/index.htm
> >>>>>>>> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Dear Sasha, all,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding
> >>>>>>>> response. I think you are right in your assertion
> that we
> >>>>>>>> are discussing some of the most fundamental
> problems of
> >>>>>>>> CHAT, ​and therefore it may be worth the try.
> However, one
> >>>>>>>> can see in the lack of response by other
> members​​ that
> >>>>>>>> not everyone has the privilege of the time it
> requires to
> >>>>>>>> go through all of it. In any case, I continue
> believing
> >>>>>>>> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to
> produce and I
> >>>>>>>> hope it is/will be appreciated as such.
> >>>>>>>>> If I may summarise ​​the core of your argument,
> I quote
> >>>>>>>> from your response:
> >>>>>>>>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial
> category,
> >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion,
> then for us
> >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We
> will
> >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which
> one can
> >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including
> >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious
> that
> >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented
> >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication
> from the
> >>>>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life.
> But from
> >>>>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and
> other such
> >>>>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or
> >>>>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence"
> >>>>>>>>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework
> >>>>>>>> according to which we are looking of the most
> original
> >>>>>>>> germ cell, the one from which all others can be
> >>>>>>>> developed​​, then object-oriented activity is
> primary. I
> >>>>>>>> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to
> agree on
> >>>>>> that.
> >>>>>>>>> But ​​once we are back to the development of a
> concrete
> >>>>>>>> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact
> that, for
> >>>>>>>> any child to participate in human forms of
> object-oriented
> >>>>>>>> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented
> >>>>>>>> activity that also characterise any other
> multi-cellular
> >>>>>>>> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise
> into those
> >>>>>>>> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any
> category
> >>>>>>>> devised to account for human psyche needs to
> agree with
> >>>>>>>> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you
> describe, is
> >>>>>>>> this germ cell initial to human concrete
> psychology, or is
> >>>>>>>> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one?
> >>>>>>>>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others
> answer
> >>>>>>>> (which I hope some do).
> >>>>>>>>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question
> a try:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be
> primary in
> >>>>>>>> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of
> teaching
> >>>>>>>> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies
> show, this
> >>>>>>>> is only possible through *involvement* in collective
> >>>>>>>> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is
> primary
> >>>>>>>> over, for example, the teaching of a language
> (which is
> >>>>>>>> only possible in and through object-oriented
> activity).
> >>>>>>>> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional
> aspect of
> >>>>>>>> the relation between adult and child, inherently
> tied to
> >>>>>>>> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this
> >>>>>>>> object-oriented activity already ​characterised
> by all
> >>>>>>>> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually
> >>>>>>>> uplifting' in the very moment in which we
> describe such
> >>>>>>>> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do
> you get
> >>>>>>>> collective activity without them? On this, and
> precisely
> >>>>>>>> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence
> of Man",
> >>>>>>>> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident
> in that
> >>>>>>>> case that communication is included in activity
> and is its
> >>>>>>>> essential component: without relation to another
> >>>>>>>> person(s), activity is impossible'  (144).
> Although I not
> >>>>>>>> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky,
> here I can't
> >>>>>>>> see how he can be wrong.
> >>>>>>>>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of
> >>>>>>>> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the
> >>>>>>>> category of object-oriented activity, is most
> primary. Let
> >>>>>>>> me also note that ​there are other authors who have
> >>>>>>>> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity
> that you
> >>>>>>>> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on
> >>>>>>>> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom
> >>>>>>>> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of
> auto-affection' (
> >>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/ Incarnation-Philosophy-
> >>>>>> Studies-Phenomenology- Existential/dp/0810131269
> >>>>>>>> )
> >>>>>>>>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology,
> I wonder
> >>>>>>>> whether ​we should be forced to choose between
> activity
> >>>>>>>> and communication. Is not the distinction just an
> artefact
> >>>>>>>> of a partial understanding of what it means
> activity and
> >>>>>>>> what it means communicating. I still feel that
> >>>>>>>> communication, in the sense of addressivity that
> Mikhailov
> >>>>>>>> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity,
> or for
> >>>>>>>> semiotics. If the question is whether practical
> activity
> >>>>>>>> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear.
> You don't
> >>>>>>>> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my
> perhaps
> >>>>>>>> naive view, we ought to have a notion of
> communication
> >>>>>>>> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity'
> (as in
> >>>>>>>> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity),
> for I
> >>>>>>>> don't see how any practical activity can have any
> sense
> >>>>>>>> (and so be achieved) for any human outside
> addressivity.
> >>>>>>>> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity
> we are
> >>>>>>>> talking about; one machines could perform on
> their own
> >>>>>>>> without consciousness. ​
> >>>>>>>>> Best wishes,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Alfredo
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ______________________________ __
> >>>>>>>>> From: Alexander Surmava
> <alexander.surmava@yahoo.com
> <mailto:alexander.surmava@yahoo.com>
> >>>>>> <mailto:alexander.surmava@yahoo.com
> <mailto:alexander.surmava@yahoo.com>>
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:alexander.surmava@ yahoo.com>
> <mailto:alexander.surmava@yahoo.com>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54
> >>>>>>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.>
> >>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd>.> edu>; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo
> >>>>>>>> Jornet Gil; ‪Haydi Zulfei‬ ‪‬; Mike Cole
> >>>>>>>>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al
> >>>>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more
> interesting,
> >>>>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But
> before
> >>>>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica aparté
> (replica
> >>>>>>>> aside) :-)
> >>>>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if
> it is
> >>>>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical
> approach,
> >>>>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its
> framework
> >>>>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a
> >>>>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually
> considered the
> >>>>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism.
> >>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our
> discussions
> >>>>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the
> >>>>>>>> interpretation of these concepts.
> >>>>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the
> principle
> >>>>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism
> compatible
> >>>>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that
> is, it is
> >>>>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and
> >>>>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory.
> Or maybe
> >>>>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to
> add to
> >>>>>>>> these two principles something third, say -
> "subjectness"?
> >>>>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and
> similar
> >>>>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of
> our inquiry
> >>>>>>>> and without answering them in the most general
> form, we
> >>>>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step.
> But this
> >>>>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again,
> >>>>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic
> theoretical
> >>>>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that
> >>>>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological
> theory,
> >>>>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially
> >>>>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a
> consistently
> >>>>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the
> >>>>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical
> >>>>>>>> verbiage<https://www <https://www/>.
> >>>>>> <https://www./>multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_
> >>>>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5>
> >>>>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical
> >>>>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions
> between
> >>>>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev.
> >>>>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting
> for me too
> >>>>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to
> education and
> >>>>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from
> Central
> >>>>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego.
> >>>>>>>>> Agitprop
> >>>>>>>>>              sticks
> >>>>>>>>>                      in my teeth too,
> >>>>>>>>> and I’d rather
> >>>>>>>>>                    compose
> >>>>>>>>>                                romances for you -
> >>>>>>>>> more profit in it
> >>>>>>>>>                        and more charm.
> >>>>>>>>> But I
> >>>>>>>>>        subdued
> >>>>>>>>>                    myself,
> >>>>>>>>>                            setting my heel
> >>>>>>>>> on the throat
> >>>>>>>>>                  of my own song.
> >>>>>>>>>                                    Vladimir
> Mayakovski
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> И мне
> >>>>>>>>>              Агитпроп
> >>>>>>>>>                      в зубах навяз,
> >>>>>>>>> и мне бы
> >>>>>>>>>                    строчить
> >>>>>>>>>                                романсы на вас —
> >>>>>>>>> доходней оно
> >>>>>>>>>                        и прелестней.
> >>>>>>>>> Но я
> >>>>>>>>>        себя
> >>>>>>>>>                    смирял,
> >>>>>>>>>                            становясь
> >>>>>>>>> на горло
> >>>>>>>>>                  собственной песне.
> >>>>>>>>>                          Владимир Маяковский
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again
> forced
> >>>>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to
> >>>>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces
> us to
> >>>>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time,
> literally
> >>>>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the
> abstract
> >>>>>>>> to the concrete.
> >>>>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting
> questions
> >>>>>>>> about how to understand the principle of
> interaction as
> >>>>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented
> >>>>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will
> answer
> >>>>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed
> >>>>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated
> by me in
> >>>>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago
> ORIGIN OF
> >>>>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian
> >>>>>>>> Принципы теории рефлексивной
> >>>>>>>> деятельности<https://www <https://www/>.
> >>>>>> <https://www./>academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_
> >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_
> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_
> >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%
> 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82%
> >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_
> >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0%
> >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%
> >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5%
> >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%
> >>>>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> .
> >>>>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the
> >>>>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is
> >>>>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in
> published in
> >>>>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange
> >>>>>>>> reason was not published then or later.
> >>>>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your
> questions,
> >>>>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text
> >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_
> >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.
> >>>>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would
> like to
> >>>>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the
> interaction
> >>>>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in
> no case
> >>>>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two
> >>>>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false
> approach
> >>>>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism
> has in my
> >>>>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that
> should
> >>>>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is
> obvious
> >>>>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is
> characteristic of the
> >>>>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling
> called the
> >>>>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object
> >>>>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are
> not dealing
> >>>>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with
> the logic
> >>>>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (логика полагания
> >>>>>>>> предмета), or "organic" type of interaction in the
> >>>>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words,
> "positing"
> >>>>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest,
> >>>>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the
> chemism
> >>>>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the
> sense
> >>>>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its
> active and
> >>>>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic
> interaction, in
> >>>>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is
> active,
> >>>>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive,
> objective. There
> >>>>>>>> are many interesting differences between them,
> but let us
> >>>>>>>> return to this somehow later.
> >>>>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my
> graduation
> >>>>>>>> work of 1988:
> >>>>>>>>> “Active or predmet directed (object oriented)
> relation
> >>>>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction
> of two
> >>>>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the
> sun taken
> >>>>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is
> >>>>>>>> neither “predmet” for a plant, nor for astronomy. It
> >>>>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively
> due to
> >>>>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer)
> >>>>>>>> “selecting” the sun as its predmet and “scrupulously”
> >>>>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the
> plant
> >>>>>>>> leaves (with his telescope).
> >>>>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet
> relation
> >>>>>>>> as such is possible only between a living,
> spontaneously
> >>>>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital
> >>>>>> activity.
> >>>>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive
> relation,
> >>>>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not
> >>>>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being
> stimulated.
> >>>>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism
> does not
> >>>>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with
> >>>>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external
> influence.
> >>>>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it
> is not
> >>>>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause)
> can be
> >>>>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the
> organism
> >>>>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external
> thing
> >>>>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into
> >>>>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it
> >>>>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of
> >>>>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive
> >>>>>> relation.”
> >>>>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and
> >>>>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the
> >>>>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special
> Mikhailovsky's
> >>>>>>>> "addressing" to another person.
> >>>>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered
> >>>>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have
> to try to
> >>>>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human
> consciousness
> >>>>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has
> been and
> >>>>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology
> >>>>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and
> >>>>>> Ilyenkov.
> >>>>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If
> we want
> >>>>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the
> >>>>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract
> to the
> >>>>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers
> >>>>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of
> >>>>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct
> method, to
> >>>>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical
> >>>>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to
> choose one
> >>>>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at
> first
> >>>>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a
> >>>>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of
> course
> >>>>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic
> >>>>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that
> ".…the human
> >>>>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single
> >>>>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the
> >>>>>>>> social relations.. "
> >>>>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in
> Vygotsky's
> >>>>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a
> purely
> >>>>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to
> >>>>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical
> psychology
> >>>>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from
> Marx, then
> >>>>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely
> >>>>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us
> with
> >>>>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which
> of them it
> >>>>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first
> place,
> >>>>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have
> to be
> >>>>>>>> solved by ourselves.
> >>>>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this
> >>>>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two «bosses». A
> >>>>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose
> leader was AN
> >>>>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov
> undoubtedly
> >>>>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object
> oriented
> >>>>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the
> first, second
> >>>>>>>> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a
> group of
> >>>>>>>> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was
> inclined to
> >>>>>>>> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words,
> >>>>>>>> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas
> "Leningraders"
> >>>>>>>> were for communication.
> >>>>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our
> >>>>>>>> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a
> literal
> >>>>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion,
> but our
> >>>>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality,
> such a
> >>>>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the
> >>>>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered
> something
> >>>>>>>> rather indecent.
> >>>>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of
> >>>>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also
> >>>>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic
> victory,
> >>>>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by
> organizing
> >>>>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was
> >>>>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was
> >>>>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the
> post of
> >>>>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the
> dean of
> >>>>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a
> >>>>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader
> >>>>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful
> people in
> >>>>>>>> the ideological department of the Central
> Committee of
> >>>>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of
> scientific
> >>>>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful
> discussions in
> >>>>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the
> >>>>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed 
> supporters
> >>>>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas.
> Davydov's
> >>>>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology
> of RAE
> >>>>>>>> could not reverse the situation too.
> >>>>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to
> >>>>>>>> "communication" and "activity."
> >>>>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial
> category,
> >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion,
> then for us
> >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We
> will
> >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which
> one can
> >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including
> >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious
> that
> >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented
> >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication
> from the
> >>>>>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life.
> But from
> >>>>>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and
> other such
> >>>>>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or
> >>>>>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence.
> >>>>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion,
> but a fact
> >>>>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive
> >>>>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner
> reflexivity and
> >>>>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is
> first
> >>>>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic
> level,
> >>>>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex
> dialectic
> >>>>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in
> the course
> >>>>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is
> traced.
> >>>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external
> >>>>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals,
> >>>>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives,
> >>>>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a
> >>>>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of
> man.
> >>>>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive
> Activity"
> >>>>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are
> taken not
> >>>>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of
> >>>>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful,
> but as
> >>>>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it’s
> >>>>>>>> REFLEXIVE side.
> >>>>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me
> in my
> >>>>>>>> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a
> >>>>>>>> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the
> >>>>>>>> relation of objective activity and
> "communication". In the
> >>>>>>>> same time, reflexive object oriented activity,
> that is,
> >>>>>>>> the active relation of the subject to the object
> and to
> >>>>>>>> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the
> human, as,
> >>>>>>>> indeed, any other, psychology.
> >>>>>>>>> Формат интернет чата не самое подходящее место
> для того,
> >>>>>>>> чтобы вводить столь фундаментальные понятия,
> потому тем,
> >>>>>>>> кто хочет разобраться в проблеме пресловутой
> «клеточки»,
> >>>>>>>> следует заглянуть в не слишком большой английский
> текст
> >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_
> >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS
> >>>>>>>> и прочитать его дальше первых нескольких страниц.
> >>>>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most
> suitable
> >>>>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts,
> >>>>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the
> problem of the
> >>>>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large
> >>>>>>>> English text
> >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_
> >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS
> >>>>>>>> and read it to the end :-).
> >>>>>>>>> Полный текст на русском ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE
> AND HUMAN
> >>>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian Принципы теории
> рефлексивной
> >>>>>>>> деятельности<https://www <https://www/>.
> >>>>>> <https://www./>academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_
> >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_
> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_
> >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%
> 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82%
> >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_
> >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0%
> >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%
> >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5%
> >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%
> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8>
> >>>>>>>>> Наконец, краткий текст на русском, соответствующий
> >>>>>>>> английскому переводу
> >>>>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/
> >>>>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0%
> >>>>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF%
> >>>>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84%
> >>>>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%
> >>>>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0%
> >>>>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%
> BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527
> >>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al
> >>>>>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more
> interesting,
> >>>>>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But
> before
> >>>>>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica aparté
> (replica
> >>>>>>>> aside) :-)
> >>>>>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if
> it is
> >>>>>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical
> approach,
> >>>>>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its
> framework
> >>>>>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a
> >>>>>>>> common, unifying conception are usually
> considered the
> >>>>>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism.
> >>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our
> discussions
> >>>>>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the
> >>>>>>>> interpretation of these concepts.
> >>>>>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the
> principle
> >>>>>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism
> compatible
> >>>>>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that
> is, it is
> >>>>>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and
> >>>>>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory.
> Or maybe
> >>>>>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to
> add to
> >>>>>>>> these two principles something third, say -
> "subjectness"?
> >>>>>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and
> similar
> >>>>>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of
> our inquiry
> >>>>>>>> and without answering them in the most general
> form, we
> >>>>>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step.
> But this
> >>>>>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again,
> >>>>>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic
> theoretical
> >>>>>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that
> >>>>>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological
> theory,
> >>>>>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially
> >>>>>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a
> consistently
> >>>>>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the
> >>>>>>>> interesting only for us theoretical
> >>>>>>>> verbiage<https://www <https://www/>.
> >>>>>> <https://www./>multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_
> >>>>>> 1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB% EE%E2%E8%E5>
> >>>>>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical
> >>>>>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions
> between
> >>>>>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev.
> >>>>>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting
> for me too
> >>>>>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to
> education and
> >>>>>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from
> Central
> >>>>>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego.
> >>>>>>>>> Agitprop
> >>>>>>>>>              sticks
> >>>>>>>>>                      in my teeth too,
> >>>>>>>>> and I’d rather
> >>>>>>>>>                    compose
> >>>>>>>>>                                romances for you -
> >>>>>>>>> more profit in it
> >>>>>>>>>                        and more charm.
> >>>>>>>>> But I
> >>>>>>>>>        subdued
> >>>>>>>>>                    myself,
> >>>>>>>>>                            setting my heel
> >>>>>>>>> on the throat
> >>>>>>>>>                  of my own song.
> >>>>>>>>>                                    Vladimir
> Mayakovski
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> И мне
> >>>>>>>>>              Агитпроп
> >>>>>>>>>                      в зубах навяз,
> >>>>>>>>> и мне бы
> >>>>>>>>>                    строчить
> >>>>>>>>>                                романсы на вас —
> >>>>>>>>> доходней оно
> >>>>>>>>>                        и прелестней.
> >>>>>>>>> Но я
> >>>>>>>>>        себя
> >>>>>>>>>                    смирял,
> >>>>>>>>>                            становясь
> >>>>>>>>> на горло
> >>>>>>>>>                  собственной песне.
> >>>>>>>>>                          Владимир Маяковский
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again
> forced
> >>>>>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to
> >>>>>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces
> us to
> >>>>>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time,
> literally
> >>>>>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the
> abstract
> >>>>>>>> to the concrete.
> >>>>>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting
> questions
> >>>>>>>> about how to understand the principle of
> interaction as
> >>>>>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented
> >>>>>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will
> answer
> >>>>>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed
> >>>>>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated
> by me in
> >>>>>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago
> ORIGIN OF
> >>>>>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian
> >>>>>>>> Принципы теории рефлексивной
> >>>>>>>> деятельности<https://www <https://www/>.
> >>>>>> <https://www./>academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_
> >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_
> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_
> >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%
> 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82%
> >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_
> >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0%
> >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%
> >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5%
> >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%
> >>>>>> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8> .
> >>>>>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the
> >>>>>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is
> >>>>>>>> available in English. It was even sent in
> published in
> >>>>>>>> English international journal... but for some strange
> >>>>>>>> reason was not published then or later.
> >>>>>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your
> questions,
> >>>>>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text
> >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_
> >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.
> >>>>>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would
> like to
> >>>>>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the
> interaction
> >>>>>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in
> no case
> >>>>>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two
> >>>>>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false
> approach
> >>>>>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism
> has in my
> >>>>>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that
> should
> >>>>>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is
> obvious
> >>>>>>>> that such a logic of interaction is
> characteristic of the
> >>>>>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling
> called the
> >>>>>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object
> >>>>>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are
> not dealing
> >>>>>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with
> the logic
> >>>>>>>> of positing, positing of the object (логика полагания
> >>>>>>>> предмета), or "organic" type of interaction in the
> >>>>>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words,
> "positing"
> >>>>>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest,
> >>>>>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the
> chemism
> >>>>>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the
> sense
> >>>>>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its
> active and
> >>>>>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic
> interaction, in
> >>>>>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is
> active,
> >>>>>>>> subjective, while the other is passive,
> objective. There
> >>>>>>>> are many interesting differences between them,
> but let us
> >>>>>>>> return to this somehow later.
> >>>>>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my
> graduation
> >>>>>>>> work of 1988:
> >>>>>>>>> “Active or predmet directed (object oriented)
> relation
> >>>>>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction
> of two
> >>>>>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the
> sun taken
> >>>>>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is
> >>>>>>>> neither “predmet” for a plant, nor for astronomy. It
> >>>>>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively
> due to
> >>>>>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer)
> >>>>>>>> “selecting” the sun as its predmet and “scrupulously”
> >>>>>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the
> plant
> >>>>>>>> leaves (with his telescope).
> >>>>>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet
> relation
> >>>>>>>> as such is possible only between a living,
> spontaneously
> >>>>>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital
> >>>>>> activity.
> >>>>>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive
> relation,
> >>>>>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not
> >>>>>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being
> stimulated.
> >>>>>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism
> does not
> >>>>>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with
> >>>>>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external
> influence.
> >>>>>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it
> is not
> >>>>>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause)
> can be
> >>>>>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the
> organism
> >>>>>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external
> thing
> >>>>>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into
> >>>>>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it
> >>>>>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of
> >>>>>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive
> >>>>>> relation.”
> >>>>>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and
> >>>>>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the
> >>>>>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special
> Mikhailovsky's
> >>>>>>>> "addressing" to another person.
> >>>>>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered
> >>>>>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have
> to try to
> >>>>>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human
> consciousness
> >>>>>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has
> been and
> >>>>>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology
> >>>>>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and
> >>>>>> Ilyenkov.
> >>>>>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If
> we want
> >>>>>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the
> >>>>>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract
> to the
> >>>>>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers
> >>>>>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of
> >>>>>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct
> method, to
> >>>>>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical
> >>>>>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to
> choose one
> >>>>>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at
> first
> >>>>>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a
> >>>>>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of
> course
> >>>>>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic
> >>>>>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that
> ".…the human
> >>>>>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single
> >>>>>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the
> >>>>>>>> social relations.. "
> >>>>>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in
> Vygotsky's
> >>>>>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a
> purely
> >>>>>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to
> >>>>>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical
> psychology
> >>>>>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from
> Marx, then
> >>>>>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely
> >>>>>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us
> with
> >>>>>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which
> of them it
> >>>>>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first
> place,
> >>>>>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have
> to be
> >>>>>>>> solved by ourselves.
> >>>>>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this
> >>>>>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two «bosses». A
> >>>>>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose
> leader was
> >>>>>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov
> undoubtedly
> >>>>>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object
> oriented
> >>>>>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the
> first, second
> >>>>>>>> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach",
> whereas
> >>>>>>>> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was
> >>>>>>>> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In
> other
> >>>>>>>> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas
> >>>>>>>> "Leningraders" were for "communication".
> >>>>>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our
> >>>>>>>> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not
> a literal
> >>>>>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion,
> but our
> >>>>>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality,
> such a
> >>>>>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the
> >>>>>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered
> something
> >>>>>>>> rather indecent.
> >>>>>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of
> >>>>>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also
> >>>>>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic
> victory,
> >>>>>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by
> organizing
> >>>>>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was
> >>>>>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was
> >>>>>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the
> post of
> >>>>>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the
> dean of
> >>>>>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a
> >>>>>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader
> >>>>>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful
> people in
> >>>>>>>> the ideological department of the Central
> Committee of
> >>>>>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of
> scientific
> >>>>>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful
> discussions in
> >>>>>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the
> >>>>>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed 
> supporters
> >>>>>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas.
> Davydov's
> >>>>>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology
> of RAE
> >>>>>>>> could not reverse the situation too.
> >>>>>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to
> >>>>>>>> "communication" and "activity."
> >>>>>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial
> category,
> >>>>>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion,
> then for us
> >>>>>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We
> will
> >>>>>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which
> one can
> >>>>>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including
> >>>>>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious
> that
> >>>>>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented
> >>>>>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication
> from the
> >>>>>>>> object oriented activity, which is an attribute
> property
> >>>>>>>> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love,
> >>>>>>>> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting
> plots, we
> >>>>>>>> will never get life or object oriented activity
> even with
> >>>>>>>> the greatest diligence.
> >>>>>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion,
> but a fact
> >>>>>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive
> >>>>>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner
> reflexivity and
> >>>>>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is
> first
> >>>>>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic
> level,
> >>>>>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex
> dialectic
> >>>>>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in
> the course
> >>>>>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is
> traced.
> >>>>>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external
> >>>>>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals,
> >>>>>>>> together and practically producing their own lives,
> >>>>>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a
> >>>>>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of
> man.
> >>>>>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive
> Activity"
> >>>>>>>> communication and the affective side of life are
> taken not
> >>>>>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of
> >>>>>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful,
> but as
> >>>>>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it’s
> >>>>>>>> REFLEXIVE side.
> >>>>>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my
> diploma
> >>>>>>>> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist
> >>>>>>>> theoretical solution to the question of the
> relation of
> >>>>>>>> objective activity and "communication". In the
> same time,
> >>>>>>>> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the
> active
> >>>>>>>> relation of the subject to the object and to
> itself, is
> >>>>>>>> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as,
> indeed,
> >>>>>>>> any other, psychology.
> >>>>>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most
> suitable
> >>>>>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts,
> >>>>>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the
> problem of the
> >>>>>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large
> >>>>>>>> English text
> >>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/ 33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_
> >>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS
> >>>>>>>> and read it to the end :-).
> >>>>>>>>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE
> AND HUMAN
> >>>>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian Принципы теории
> рефлексивной
> >>>>>>>> деятельности<https://www <https://www/>.
> >>>>>> <https://www./>academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_
> >>>>>> OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_
> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_
> >>>>>> %D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%
> 86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82%
> >>>>>> D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_
> >>>>>> %D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0%
> >>>>>> B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%
> >>>>>> BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5%
> >>>>>> D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%
> D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8>
> >>>>>>>>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to
> short
> >>>>>>>> English one
> >>>>>>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/
> >>>>>> download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0%
> >>>>>> BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF%
> >>>>>> D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84%
> >>>>>> D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%
> >>>>>> D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0%
> >>>>>> BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%
> BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527.
> >>>>>>>>> Sasha
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>