# [Xmca-l] Re: Volkelt's diagram (LSV's HMF Vol 4)

So far as I can see the Latin "momentum" diverged along two paths somewhere around the 15th century. From the idea of a moment (of time) we had an "important moment," that is, an event with powerful repercussions and this lead to "momentum" meaning the inertia of a moving body, i.e., its power to affect things, and a measure of the power of bodies which (like angular momentum) integrated the mass and spatial dimensions, as well as mass and velocity, so the measure of angular momentum was generalised across different types of function, and then to high powers.
So the two streams of meaning have a common origin.

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
On 12/01/2016 12:27 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote:
Well, my understanding is that there isn't a hidden dimension to its usage in text. That was the reason for questioning it. But if you uncover something in the origins of the expression (your earlier email) then it would be interesting to know more.

Best,
Huw

On 11 January 2016 at 13:21, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:

I don't know where this is going, Huw.
There are several quite distinct meanings of "moment."
Some to do with short periods of time, some to do with
large force. But there are literally dozens of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_(physics)
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_%28physics%29>

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
<http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
On 11/01/2016 11:35 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote:
moment (n.)
<http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=moment&allowed_in_frame=0>
Look up moment at Dictionary.com
<http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=moment>
mid-14c., "very brief portion of time, instant,"
in moment of time, from Old French moment (12c.)
"moment, minute; importance, weight, value" or
directly from Latin momentum "movement, motion;
moving power; alteration, change;" also "short
time, instant" (also source of Spanish, Italian
momento), contraction of *movimentum, from
movere "to move" (see move
<http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=move&allowed_in_frame=0> (v.)).
Some (but not OED) explain the sense evolution of
the Latin word by notion of a particle so small
it would just "move" the pointer of a scale,
which led to the transferred sense of "minute
time division." Sense of "importance, 'weight' "
is attested in English from 1520s.

Phrase never a dull moment first recorded 1889 in
Jerome K. Jerome's "Three Men in a Boat." Phrase
moment of truth first recorded 1932 in
Hemingway's "Death in the Afternoon," from
Spanish el momento de la verdad, the final
sword-thrust in a bull-fight.
momentum (n.)
<http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=momentum&allowed_in_frame=0>
Look up momentum at Dictionary.com
<http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=momentum>
1690s, scientific use in mechanics, "quantity of
motion of a moving body," from Latin
momentum "movement, moving power" (see moment
<http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=moment&allowed_in_frame=0>).
Figurative use dates from 1782.

This would imply something like "the manifest force
or expression at this point in time" or "the duration
of time for which this manifest force is constant".

On 11 January 2016 at 12:17, Andy Blunden
<ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:

No all the science-related meanings are derived
from either Integral of f(x) * (x to power n).
Torque is related to angular momentum which is an
integral of mass* distance from axis.
The interpreation this leads to is that each
"moment" expresses a property of the whole
function. A function can be represented either by
a series of values for each x, or by the series
of moments. The zero-th moment is the total mass,
the first moment is the "torque". Higher moments
arise when you are dealing with flexible systems,
or dynamic systems with inertia.

YOu also get the term arising with power series,
I think, which is a kind of inverse of the above.

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
<http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
On 11/01/2016 11:08 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote:
Is torque being used here in the sense that the
moon influences the tides? E.g. conceiving
stages as pendulum like things that, when,
considered together may appear as 'torque'
applied to a base form.  If so, then perhaps the
meaning may be the same overall, i.e. a moment
from one aspect appearing as torque in another.

Best,
Huw

On 11 January 2016 at 01:59, Andy Blunden
<ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
wrote:

According to the Oxford English Dictionary,
in sense 9. "moment" means "An essential
element or significant aspect of a complex
conceptual entity" first used in a
translation of Kant's Critique of Pure
Reason in 1838.
But the OED also refers to "moment" in
meaning 8c as "torque," so I guess that
exposes a bit of Cole word play going on
there, yes?
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
<http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
On 11/01/2016 12:36 PM, mike cole wrote:

I found Martin's blog entry helpful,
Andy. Still working on the phenomenology
of the usage. I think the form of
part-whole relation is what is at issue
and "moments" in this sense are
qualitatively distinct, marked, events.
Events whose conventional meaning is
torqued by the exception.

still learning!
mike

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Andy
Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:

I am not at all clear about the
context here, Mike.
Huw mentioned Vygotsky using
"instances" which he
thought should have been "instants"
and then David
introduced "moments" and Hegel's use
of "moments,"
which was the subject of my comment.

I did a search of "Thinking and
Speech" and found that
all bar one instance of the use of
the word "moment"
were in the sense of "at this moment
in the story ..."
The one odd reference is this one:

"We have consistently taken a
genetic approach to the
analysis of our problem. We have,
however, attempted to
represent the *moments* of this
genetic process in
their
mature, classic forms. The
inevitable result is that we
have diverged from the complex
and twisting path that
characterizes the actual
development of the child’s
concepts."

It is possible that Vygotsky refers
with "moment" here
to the distinct modes of conception
which were
manifested in the child's activity,
at different
stages, but which are combined in
the most developed
pseudoconcept. It is a fact that
associative
complexes, collection complexes,
chain complexes,
diffuse complexes, and
pseudocomplexes could not
possibly manifest themselves as
successive stages.
Perhaps their *first appearance* in
ontogenesis could
form some kind of regular sequence,
possibly, but it
is also possible that Vygotsky saw
these forms of
association as "moments" of concept
formation in the
other sense of the word "moment"
which is not
interchangeable with "instant". But
I couldn't say for
sure.

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
<http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
<http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
On 11/01/2016 11:23 AM, mike cole wrote:

The theoretical point seems
interesting and worth
clarifying. The differing
interpretations have
quite different implications.
mike

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 4:10 PM,
Andy Blunden
<ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>

<mailto:ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>> wrote:

Actually, Hegel does not use
"moment" as meaning a
stage, phase or step, David.
He tends to use
phase,
category, stage or division
for those concepts.

Individual, Particular and
Universal are typical
examples of "moments" but
these are not steps,
phases
or stages of the concepts,
even though they
are also
exhibited in this way. Every
concrete concept
has all
union, the members, the
branches/divisions and the general
secretary are
individual, universal and
particular moments. We
cannot conceive of a union
developing from an
individual to a branch to a
general secretary,
can we?

I will look into the origins
of this expression. I
have always just presumed it
came from
mathematics, as
in the first, second, third,
... moments of a
function, and I know Hegel
did study this
branch of
mathematics, because he
gives a lot of space
to it in
the Science of Logic in his
critique of
calculus. But
I am probably quite wrong.
I'll check.

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
<http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
<http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>

On 11/01/2016 4:32 AM, David
Kellogg wrote:

Huw:

Yes, Vygotsky uses
"instants" and even
more often
"moments", and the word
"moment" sometimes means
a stage, or a
phase, or a
step (as in the three
"moments" of the formation of the concept in
Hegel, as in "in
itself", "for
others", "for myself".

One of the most
to solve
in translating the
Lectures on Pedology was
that Vygotsky very
clearly distinguishes three
moments of speech
development: indicative,
nominative, and signifying.
"Indicative" is often non-verbal, e.g. a
pointing
gesture. "Nominating" is
ipso facto verbal,
because it is the naming
function: "every thing has a
name". But "signifying"
is much harder to pin
down, and in one place
Vygotsky actually says
that it is
synonymous with
that anything can be
named. So what is the
difference between knowing that
everything has a name and the knowledge
that any
thing can be named?

I think that the
distinction is just as
subtle and
just as significant
as the distinction
between pointing to
something
with a gesture, pointing
to something with a word
like "this" or
"that",
and pointing to something
with a word like "apple"
or "pear". If I
say that
"everything has a name",
the name could be
extremely general
("everything"
or "thing") or it could
be highly specific
("Huw" or "this
computer"). But
I don't yet have the
idea that names are
invented, and that
therefore
it is possible to name
objects which do not
exist, and therefore
to bring
into existence modes of
pure abstract thinking
through language.
That's
signifying, and it is
indeed a new moment, or
a new instant, in the
lifelong process of speech
development.

David Kellogg
Macquarie University

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at
4:04 PM, Huw Lloyd
<huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
<mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
<mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
<mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>>
<mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
<mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
<mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
<mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>>>>
wrote:

Thank you, David.
That helps to explain a
particular aspect that I thought
Vygotsky was overlooking in the narrative,
which is that
stimuli can not
only signify but
also symbolise, i.e. they
afford the kind of
dynamics you
have elucidated from
Volkelt's schema.

I have also noted
that the translation of
phrases like "instances of a
process" is probably off the mark
too.  What
is really meant, I
believe, is
"instants of a process". These have two
rather different
meanings from the

Best,
Huw

On 10 January 2016
at 06:02, David Kellogg
<dkellogg60@gmail.com
<mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com>
<mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com
<mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com>>
<mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com
<mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com>

<mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com
<mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com>>>> wrote:

Huw:

Here's what Vygotsky really says:

Если задача не превышает
естественных сил
ребенка, он справляется с ней
непосредственным или примитивным
способом.
В этих случаях структура его
поведения совершенно напоминает схему,
нарисованную Фолькельтом.

(Russian

Collected Works, p. 117).

This means (as nearly as I can
make out):
"If the task did not go beyond
the natural capability of the
child, he
could deal with it in an

unmediated

or primitive method. In this
cases, the
structure of his behavior would

be

completely similar to the scheme as
presented by Volkelt".

I think there is no diagramme, at
least
not in the sense of a two
dimensional graphic one can have a
copy
of. What Vygotsky is referring to
is Volkelt's attempt to explain
all child
behavior as the result of an
affectively tinged FUSION of
perception
and behavior, an affectively
colored, unanalyzable, whole  in which
perception and behavior were
absolutely inseparable. This was
what Hans
Volkelt concluded from a

series

of experiments that Vygotsky refers to
repeatedly, both in HDHMF and in

the

Lectures on Pedology and elswhere.

baby bottles: one shaped like a
triangle, one like a violin, one
like a
square, etc. They were all
different colors as well. But three of
them didn't have holes in the

teat:

you could see and smell the milk
but you
couldn't drink it. One did. He
taught the infants to associate the
drinking of milk and the feeling of
satiation with one particular
bottle, so
that they would actually ignore
the bottle unless it had all the
characteristics: triangularity,

blueness,

etc. So Volkelt argued that from the
child's point of view, he was not
drinking milk but triangular blue
milk.
This kind of "affectively colored
whole" is what Vygotsky refers to as
"Volkelt's scheme", or "Volkelt's
schemata".

Volkelt's scheme came to a bad end. He
eventually decided that we never
grow out of unanalyzable affectively
colored perception-behavior wholes,
and this would explain the
indivisible and
inseparable devotion of the
German volk to their Fuhrer. So in
later
work Vygotsky is very careful to
distance himself from Volkelt even
in his
explanations of infant

behavior:

in the Lectures on Pedology he
argues that
ALL THREE layers of behavior
(that is, instinct, habit, and
intelligence) are present in infancy.

David Kellogg
Macquarie University

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 10:50 PM,
Huw Lloyd
<huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
<mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
<mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
<mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>>
<mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
<mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
<mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
<mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>>>>
wrote:

Does anyone have a copy of
"Volkelt's
diagram" to hand that is referred

to

in The History of the
Development of
Higher Mental Functions (1997,

p.85

and onwards in ch. 4)? I
don't think
a reference is given.

Best,
Huw

--
It is the dilemma of psychology
to deal as a
natural science with an
object that creates history.
Ernst Boesch

--
It is the dilemma of psychology to deal
as a natural science with an
object that creates history. Ernst Boesch