Re: [xmca] Wells article

From: Andy Blunden <ablunden who-is-at mira.net>
Date: Sat Oct 06 2007 - 19:12:47 PDT

:) I thought you were speaking metaphorically, Eric. Charlie, our
black-and-white cat deals with the mice and it is Charlie who is nice and
fat, which is good because it makes him soft and cuddly sitting on our laps
after a hard day's cat-work.

If you have read and re-read Ilyenkov, then I take it from that that you
want to understand this stuff. I confess that because of my own specific
interests, I don't take a hell of a lot of interest in a lot of stuff which
other xmca-ers are right into, - to me just looks like a lot of trivial
detail. I know it's not, but line-by-line analysis of transcribed
conversations just does nothing for me. :-) Perhaps if I paid greater
attention, I'd make a better xmca list discussant?

Eric, if you want to discuss Ilyenkov etc off line, send me a message. :-)
otherwise we are at risk of boring the others I fear. And Gordon probably
wants to hear more that goes to the point of his article.

Andy

At 08:38 PM 6/10/2007 -0500, you wrote:

> Andy:
>
>Perhaps you count yourself among the fortunate who can afford a home to
>live in; so, if our house had mice living in the basement you would not
>even discuss the issue but rather would be glad the mice have a nice full
>belly?
>
>I have read Ilenkov and I have reread Ilenkov. It is an interesting read
>but it goes around in circles without any clear implication as to how the
>ideal can further anything other than learning to enjoy that which is in
>front of us. I will give it another try : )
>
>eric
>
>
>
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> cc:
> bcc:
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Wells article
>Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>10/07/2007 10:08 AM ZE10
>Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <font
>size=-1></font>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Eric, I decided some years ago to drop the phrase "dialectical
>materialism", a phrase invented by some of Marx's followers after his
>death, which conveys the false idea that there is a little formula, some
>kind of "method" which solves all our difficulties. So that might be a
>first step. But beyond that there can be no easy answer or short-cut can
>there? Like any historical current of thought it has to be studied. I count
>myself among those who believe that Vygotsky and his friends cannot be
>understood without also understanding Marx and I also incline to the view
>that Marx cannot be understood without understanding Hegel, which is
>certainly an "inconvenient truth". :-)
>A good way to start might be to read through Ilyenkov:
>http://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/index.htm
>Andy
>At 05:08 PM 6/10/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>
> > Andy:
> >
> >And so the discussion continues. Yes, it is true that together we have
> >traveled a common road but certainly with different vehicles, both in
> >search of an understanding of the human condition. I can appreciate that
> >"ideal" is not to be taken figuratively as, "It would be ideal if there
> >were no mice in my basement." However, if you and I live in the same
>house
> >and we have to discuss the problem of eradicating the mice, how would we
> >undertake this discussion? Besides the twisting and turning of reading
> >Hegel and Ilenkov could you provide me with an example that will help me
> >wrap my tiny brain around the puzzle of dialectic materialism?
> >
> >eric
> >
> >
> > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > cc:
> > bcc:
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] Wells article
> >Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> >Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> >10/06/2007 09:45 AM ZE10
> >Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <font
> >size=-1></font>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Eric, the problem is that the relevant words - ideal, object, subject,
> >discourse, activity, action, act, operation, thought, matter, mind - all
> >have radically different meanings according to whether they are taken as
> >part of Leontyev's Activity Theory, Marxism more generally, Kantian
> >philosophy, Hegelian philosophy or everyday common sense.
> >
> >I included a link
> >http://marx.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/ideal/ideal.htm in earlier mail,
> >solely to clarify what "ideal" meant to me and in the CHAT tradition. The
> >way Ilyenkov explains the meaning of "ideal" he does indeed see it as
> >evolving out of human objectives and needs, but it does not mean the same
> >as "ideal" as in the sentence: "It would be ideal if there were no mice
> >here." "Ideal" refers to the universal aspect of an activity which is
> >reified or objectified, that is to say, imputed to the properties of
> >material objects or actually embodied in matter by changing the form of
> >matter through some kind of labour, so that the material object can be
> >interpreted and used to coordinate collaborative human activity. Every
> >concept or thought is an ideal, because that is exactly how we think and
> >use concepts.
> >
> >In an earlier mail I included a link to
> >http://marx.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/five2.htm so that if anyone
> >wanted they could check up on what is meant by "material" in the tradition
> >of thinking to which CHAT belongs.
> >
> >"Subject" and "object" are also very contested words. "Object" does not
> >mean for us what it means in a sentence like: "The object was to get rid
>of
> >the mice" and "Subject" does not mean what it means in the sentence: "The
> >subject of our conversation was the best method for eradication of mice."
> >"Object" in the sense of what is intended to be achieved is similar to
> >"object" here, and perhaps someone else will help me here, but I suspect
> >that when Leontyev and his followers talk about "object-oriented activity"
> >they do indeed mean "object" in this sense, as opposed to the meaning of
> >"object" when contrasted with "subject". The two meanings are closely
> >related but not identical.
> >
> >The meaning of "subject" is extremely tricky and I will make it my
> >contribution hopefully before I die to clarify this one. Despite the fact
> >that CHAT arose from the tradition of thought: Hegel - Marx - Vygotsky,
> >using the Hegelian meaning of the word "subject", in common with all
> >contemporary philosophy, advocates of CHAT almost invariably use the word
> >"subject" in its Kantian sense, tied to methodological individualism. This
> >meaning is so ubiquitous and also it remains the only means of capturing
> >the ethical meaning, that it is almost impossible to avoid using "subject"
> >in the sense of a morally responsible individual person. But that is not
> >what it meant to Hegel and Marx. I don't have the knowledge to track how
>it
> >was used by the Russians, though I'd love to be told.
> >
> >So Eric, almost all the difficulties you and I have had communicating in
> >this discussion, I think, derive from differences in word meaning. I am a
> >bit stubborn that way, I admit. I refuse to give up the meaning of words
> >when those meanings are so profound and contain so much of science from
>the
> >past which is lost in everyday language. Apologies. All I can do is enjoin
> >you to acquaint yourself with the Hegel-Marx-Vygotsky meaning of these
> >words as I try to follow what they mean in the Kant-common sense-modern
> >philosophy usage. My observation is that within CHAT these words are used
> >with inconsistent meanings by different people.
> >
> >Andy
> >
> >At 10:54 AM 5/10/2007 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> > >Paul:
> > >
> > >I truely believe that the result may be far from the ideal. However, if
> > >there is a discourse taking place between people who are engaged in a
>goal
> > >directed activity, then within the paramaters of this discoursing the
> > >"ideal" is the "object"??? I must admit I am engaging in this
>discussion
> > >more for a sense of trying to hear what my thoughts are as I write them
> > >down. Here is an example:
> > >
> > >Perhaps I have mice in my basement. I go to the feed mill and talk to
>an
> > >expert on mice eradication. The ideal would be to rid my basement of
> >mice.
> > >The discourse between I and the expert revolves around ridding my
>basement
> > >of mice. This may not result from the efforts I engage upon my return
> >home
> > >but nevertheless, when I am talking to the expert we are engaged in a
> > >discourse of "rid the mice"; not, "get rid of SOME of the mice."
> > >
> > > Andy, I do not think the expert sees me as a subject to be manipulated
> >but
> > >rather views "rid the mice" as the subject. The ideal provides a
>catalyst
> > >for how to discourse with me, the customer.
> > >
> > >Is any of this making sense?
> > >
> > >eric
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Paul
> > > Dillon
> > >
> > > <phd_crit_think@ To: "eXtended Mind,
> > > Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > yahoo.com> cc:
> > >
> > > Sent by: Subject: Re: [xmca]
>Wells
> > > article
> > > xmca-bounces@web
> > >
> > > er.ucsd.edu
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 10/03/2007
> > > 01:41
> > >
> > > PM
> > >
> > > Please
> > > respond
> > >
> > > to
> > > "eXtended
> > >
> > > Mind,
> > > Culture,
> > >
> > > Activity"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Eric,
> > >
> > > Before entering into the argument strictly speaking, I would like you
> >to
> > >look at some evidence (see attachment).
> > >
> > > I don't agree that the "ideal" exists in the discussion unless that
> > >discussion has an identifiable
> > >[object/frame-of-reference/verifiabilty-space/etc?] that exists
> > >independently of the ideal that exists in the discussion and against
>which
> > >any given instantiation of the ideal as developed in the discussion can
>be
> > >compared. Say the shape of a knife. Form as ideal - cleaver or scalpel?
> > >
> > > Also, internalized discussions in which imagined communities
> >participate,
> > >"Walter Mitty" comes to mind, must clearly enter in the discussion space
> >in
> > >which shadows of ideals sport and play.
> > >
> > > I think the evidence I' ve attached provides an arguable
>demonstration
> >of
> > >how the ideal in discussion can lead one far from the ideal that might
> > >exist independently of that discussion.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
> > >
> > >Paul:
> > >
> > >That is indeed a good question pertaining to the "ideal". If the ideal
> > >nose is invisioned then what is the product end result of the operation?
> > >There is the activity of the "noe job" and then there is the operation
>of
> > >changing the nose. The ideal is the discussion of what the new nose
> > >should look like and then there is the material end of a new nose. Just
> > >positing in fun : )
> > >
> > >eric
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> > >cc:
> > >bcc:
> > >Subject: Re: [xmca] Wells article
> > >Paul Dillon
> > >
> > >Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >10/02/2007 03:25 PM MST
> > >Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" size=-1>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >before or after the nose job?
> > >
> > >ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
> > >Paul;
> > >
> > >And here I had always invisioned you as Robert Zimmerman : )
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Paul Dillon
> > >
> > >
> > >yahoo.com> cc:
> > >Sent by: Subject: Re: [xmca] Wells article
> > >xmca-bounces@web
> > >er.ucsd.edu
> > >
> > >
> > >10/02/2007 02:29
> > >PM
> > >Please respond
> > >to "eXtended
> > >Mind, Culture,
> > >Activity"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Sure and I'm Alexander the Grape.
> > >
> > >
> > >Kevin Rocap wrote:
> > >That was....
> > >
> > >A Gordon Knot?
> > >
> > >;-)
> > >
> > >Paul Dillon wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It just ocurred to me that listserv threads are something akin to
> >Andean
> > >quipu, threads with knots used to record every kind of information. But
>.
> >.
> > >.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe Gordon could explain how what he's proposing relates to
>Habermas'
> > >theory of communicative action, a fourth level to the Weberian
>continuum,
> > >beyond strategic action, communicative action, with its own ideal state,
> > >oriented to reaching understanding. As far as I can tell, this wheel
>might
> > >already have been employed in building various kinds of vehicles. So
>maybe
> > >some clarification would be useful.
> > > >
> > > > Paul. Dillon
> > > >
> > > > "Worthen, Helena Harlow" wrote:
> > > > Andy --
> > > >
> > > > Are you saying you don't see a useful difference between language
>being
> > > > used to coordinate actions directed toward a shared goal, and
>language
> > > > being used to create something that is not the shared goal of the
> > > > participants, but something different? I think this is a useful
> > > > distinction, because the latter would give us a name for the process
>we
> > > > would expect to see if we could zoom in on and observe in slow motion
> > > > (maybe in a transcript) the way words get turned, replaced, defined
>and
> > > > re-defined in the process of negotiating an agree-upon text.
> > > >
> > > > Helena Worthen, Clinical Associate Professor
> > > > Labor Education Program, Institute of Labor & Industrial Relations
> > > > University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
> > > > 504 E. Armory, Room 227
> > > > Champaign, IL 61821
> > > > Phone: 217-244-4095
> > > > hworthen@uiuc.edu
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>[mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> > > > On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> > > > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 6:15 PM
> > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > Subject: RE: [xmca] Wells article
> > > >
> > > > Helena,
> > > > I took it that Gordon ended up saying that Halliday's distinction
> >cannot
> > > > be
> > > > sustained.
> > > > Here is what he says:
> > > >
> > > > "From this work it has becomes apparent that the initial distinction
> > > > made
> > > > by Halliday (1978)
> > > > between ancillary and constitutive discoursing, although useful
> > > > conceptually, is an oversimplification
> > > > of actual practice. The first and most obvious complication is that
> >many
> > > >
> > > > interactions
> > > > involve more than one genre, as when a shopper discusses the weather
>or
> > > > current events in
> > > > the course of a purchasing action.
> > > > A second issue is that the distinction between ancillary and
> > > > constitutive
> > > > discoursing is
> > > > not as clear-cut as Halliday suggested. Taking the football example
> >from
> > > >
> > > > earlier, at various
> > > > points before and during the game, the coach discusses strategy with
> >the
> > > >
> > > > entire team and perhaps
> > > > also with one or more individuals; he will probably also shout from
>the
> > > > sidelines. Although the
> > > > latter might fit Halliday's argument that "any instructions or other
> > > > verbal
> > > > interaction among
> > > > the players are part of this social action" (p. 144), it is not so
> >clear
> > > >
> > > > that the strategy talk before
> > > > the team leaves the dressing room is entirely part of the "social
> > > > action"
> > > > of the game itself.
> > > > However, the most difficult issue is that of determining what goals
>are
> > > > involved in any
> > > > action in which discoursing plays a part. The problem is that
> > > > participants
> > > > rarely announce their
> > > > goals, expecting others to be able to deduce them from the situation
> >and
> > > >
> > > > from the genre form
> > > > they adopt."
> > > >
> > > > So I didn't follow this issue any further because I wouldn't support
> > > > this
> > > > particular dichotomy at any but a superficial level. I think
>discourse
> > > > is
> > > > always, along with other elements of material culture, part of
> > > > constituting
> > > > the project. I see conflict as essentially indistinguishable from
> > > > collaboration and the material/ideal distinction between project also
> > > > untenable. Anyway, Gordon gave three reasons for not making this
> > > > distinction and that was good enough for me.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Andy
> > > > At 02:41 PM 1/10/2007 -0500, you wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> Hello, xmca:
> > > >>
> > > >> I'll take a shot at the Wells article, as usual, from the point of
> >view
> > > >> of a labor educator.
> > > >>
> > > >> As I read it, he's distinguishing between the use of language as
> > > >> "ancillary" to an activity and the use of language that actually
> > > >> constitutes what participants are doing. When people use language to
> > > >> coordinate activity, that's "ancillary." When the thing that has to
> > > >>
> > > > "get
> > > >
> > > >> done" is itself made out of language (he gives the example of a
> >meeting
> > > >> with an agenda and agreed-upon decisions to be made - p. 167) then
> > > >> that's "constitutive discoursing," the co-construction of "possible
> > > >> worlds" (he references Bruner). However, he's saying, this
>distinction
> > > >> has already been made (by Halliday). Wells then says that the
> > > >> distinction between the two is not always clear, because people may
>be
> > > >> co-constructing with different goals in mind. He lists some examples
> >of
> > > >> different goals in the middle of page 173.
> > > >>
> > > >> At this point, I am thinking that Wells is right but I'd like him to
> > > >> give an example where people are co-constructing something but have
> > > >>
> > > > more
> > > >
> > > >> strikingly different goals in mind -- goals more different than the
> > > >> goals of a trio of researchers observing their own discoursing or
>even
> > > >> than the goals of a teacher and three students in a busy classroom.
> > > >>
> > > >> Of course I was reading this article keeping in mind the
> > > >>
> > > > co-constructive
> > > >
> > > >> constitutive discoursing that takes place when workers and employers
> > > >> bargain a contract. The contract is an example of a "possible
>world."
> > > >>
> > > > It
> > > >
> > > >> is built up bit by bit over the years, written down and enforced
> > > >>
> > > > through
> > > >
> > > >> yards and yards, miles and miles of talk. In fact, both the contract
> > > >>
> > > > and
> > > >
> > > >> the process by which it is negotiated are negotiated. But most
>helpful
> > > >> of all to me, as I try to understand what is actually happening when
> > > >> people negotiate their conditions of work, was Wells' point that(p
> >174)
> > > >> the "the participants are not interchangeable." Constitutive
> > > >> discoursing (the co-creation of something through language) is
> > > >> characterized by participants in an itneraction who are not
> > > >> interchangeable. It is the different perspectives of the parties to
> >the
> > > >> negotiation that make the co-construction of something possible.
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm not convinced that the word "discoursing" is going to get into
> > > >> popular use. It may be that Wells doesn't expect it to go much
>further
> > > >> himself; in fact, he could be putting forth this term ironically,
> >since
> > > >> by the end of the article he appears to have pulled the plug on the
> > > >> notion that discoursing is an activity in its own right.
> > > >>
> > > >> Is there a significant stream of argument that says that the use of
> > > >> language for no other purpose (no co-construction, no constitution)
>is
> > > >> in itself an activity? Wouldn't that be like carrying a tape
>recorder
> > > >> down a busy street or drifting from channel to channel on the TV?
>But
> > > >> then we'd be in the realms of art.
> > > >>
> > > >> I saw Chris Marker's movie, Les Chats Perches (?) last night. Now
> > > >> there's a record of co-construction of an emergent text and possible
> > > >> world.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Helena Worthen
> > > >> Helena Worthen, Clinical Associate Professor
> > > >> Labor Education Program, Institute of Labor & Industrial Relations
> > > >> University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
> > > >> 504 E. Armory, Room 227
> > > >> Champaign, IL 61821
> > > >> Phone: 217-244-4095
> > > >> hworthen@uiuc.edu
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> xmca mailing list
> > > >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
> > > > AIM
> > > > identity: AndyMarxists mobile 0409 358 651
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > xmca mailing list
> > > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > xmca mailing list
> > > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your
>story.
> > > > Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > xmca mailing list
> > > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >xmca mailing list
> > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >---------------------------------
> > >Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest
> >shows
> > >on Yahoo! TV.
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >xmca mailing list
> > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >xmca mailing list
> > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >---------------------------------
> > >Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >xmca mailing list
> > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >xmca mailing list
> > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >---------------------------------
> > >Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha!
> > >Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo!
> > >Games.(See attached file: mjackson nose.jpg)
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >xmca mailing list
> > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >xmca mailing list
> > >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
> >mobile 0409 358 651
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >xmca mailing list
> >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >xmca mailing list
> >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
>mobile 0409 358 651
>
>_______________________________________________
>xmca mailing list
>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>xmca mailing list
>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

  Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
mobile 0409 358 651

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Sat Oct 6 19:15 PDT 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 20 2007 - 14:25:43 PST