[xmca] Word meanings making up "Personality"

From: varnam soupend <heidizulfai who-is-at yahoo.com>
Date: Sun Feb 24 2008 - 08:06:38 PST

 <That's why I think Bakhurst's right; the whole method comes from Marx. But we can only really clearly see this when we discard "activity" as the fundamental unit of analysis and go back to LSV and word meanings. Word meanings always involve the interface between persons; they are what make up personality.>

  Thank you for the response . Sure ! You'll be having the response to response after I receive the response to this message . Why ? Because it seems as though I'm defending AT from the perspective of just Leontyev while it is not the case . I believe Vygotsky is not so hasty and crucially definite as you are in discarding activity from his " historical significance and consider[ing] them [zigzags,returns , and loops] to be necessary links in [their--dialecticians'] chain inevitable stages of [their] path , just as capitalism is an inevitable stage on the road toward 'socialism-emphasis added' " . All quotes are from Martin's article .
  David ! For a moment , naively speaking , when you discard activity from life and detach "self" from life's relations of essences , fathoming just within the depths of the "self" , what is left of "life" itself ? Aside from your discarding of activity , there is no trace of any kind of activity , let alone "labour" within your so heavily-stressed term of "interface" . We all have heard your being against "dualism" or am I wrong in this ? but as I see you discussing , I see nothing but to think you have a priori premises relating to social phenomena all independent from the objective world and "social relations" .
  You liked Bakhurst saying : "It thus seems that what Vygotsky appropriated from Marx is best represented as a method conceived on the model of a skill or technique for following the specific nature of the object of inquiry" .
  Now please read in the article from "Vygotsky described these stages" up to "has received the rank of general from its department" . This whole thing reminds me of going from the abstract to the concrete . But is it the case you accept it ? Nope ! But this is not my problem . My problem is what kind of change of a technique is it which depicts the stages so neatly , first data , last , an explanatory principle , a universal , which goes right into the essense of objects and objective relations . And what kind of a change of a skill is it that "spreads to the most remote domains of 'being' [not understanding] , to the whole world---" And does the "interface" goes this far ? Nope ! And what kind of a change of technique is it that meets opposition on every side , and "it finally displays what it is in 'reality' , shows its real face" Now an abstract 'philosophical' form rather than a scientific fact , "the idea reveals what it wants , what it is , from which social
 tendencies it arose , which 'class interests' it serves" , and what is the affinity between a skill , technique and a 'philosophical form' and would you say it's the same skill that converts a datum into a philosophical form ? Yope or Nope :-) ?
  also : "... weaving the individual's brief life into the great age-long history of social being..."
  also : "the methodological [epistemological-supposedly Martin's and my understanding] analysis of the problem itself" ... but "must be able to 'explain' them , to lay bare their objective , their 'inner logic' "
  "Such a general psychology would deal not with abstractions handled 'logically' but with 'concepts of a higher order' in which "reality is represented in another way than in the concepts of an empirical science" .
  As to people's backing of Vygotsky's belief in activity one way or another , one cannot ignore Wertch's " [noting] that Vygotsky and Marx placed emphasis on activity . They saw practical , material interaction between humans and the 'environment' as fundamental" .
  Based on clear quotation Martin rightly declares "... and only a materialist psychology remained" . Please clarify in what way "interface" could be interpreted as being "materialist" with respect to the idea that Vygotsky cited Lenin to the effect that "what is matter , what is objective , is what exists independently of 'human consciousness' and seemingly paradoxically , consciousness can exist outside our consciousness [related to the idea of self-consciousness and me other , other me] ... could not mean but consciousness being a reflection and part of the ideal plane of the objective world with the mediating help of the "mind" .
  David ! How can we accept your declaration to the effect that <They [word meanings] are what make up personality> while we read Vygotsky himself saying "We cannot master the truth about personality and personality itself so long as mankind has not mastered the truth about 'society' and 'society itself ' ?
  It is not within the world of "word meanings" that we live ; we live first of all concretely in society and to live in a society we always incessantly and uninterruptingly face needs ; needs in themselves don't provide impetus for motion , movement , activity until they become goal-oriented , become converted into motives , desires , drives etc. Then , in a circular process life reproduces itself and here is you who could tell us if your "word meanings" have the capacity to "burst agressively into people's social relationships ... , start , initiate another spirally-directed circle of life reproduction [sublations] , of which I'm not sure ! In "Thought and Speech" , as you're referring to and in relation to interiorization and exterirization , it's the same but within the bounds of "linguistic" "logical" endeavourings .
  corrections as always welcome !
  more to come ...

Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
xmca mailing list
Received on Sun Feb 24 08:09 PST 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 09 2008 - 08:03:11 PDT