[Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of development
Andy Blunden
ablunden@mira.net
Sat Jul 5 06:11:09 PDT 2014
Yes, that's why I am apologising.
Let's just let the discussion unfold and see if a consensus can be reached.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
mike cole wrote:
> Well, we can take heart from the fact that at least one of us humans
> knows the right concepts to go with the right words, Andy!
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 6:00 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
> I fully accept that there is as much confusion among Russians as
> there is amongst English-speakers and anyone else, Mike. The
> reason is that it is not just a matter of having the right word,
> but of having the concept indicated by the word! :)
> "Unit of analysis" - introduced for the first time in Chapter 1 of
> "Thinking and Speech" is both a longstanding concept of social
> science, understood by philosophers of science pretty well, and a
> new name for the Hegelian concept of "abstract concept," the first
> category of Volume Two of the Science of Logic. Goethe was the
> first to introduce the idea in the form of Urphanomen, Hegel then
> developed this to a high degree, and Marx took it up in writing
> Capital, and that's where Vygotsky got it from. But instead of
> using 'Urphanomen', or 'germ-cell' or 'abstract concept', he
> *brilliantly* merged the idea with the existing widely-understood
> concept of "unit of analysis"! So this is a concept with two
> roots. But one of these roots is Hegel's Logic. Nowadays almost
> no-one reads Hegel's Logic. Those who come to Hegel at all read
> his early book, The Phenomenology of Spirit, which sheds no light
> on this issue. And among those who read and study Hegel's Logic,
> how many understand it? and of those who understand it, how many
> of them are familiar with Vygotsky? Very few. Unfortunately, in
> the confusion, most people who are familiar with Vygotsky's
> writing seem to be forgotten the meaning of the word "unit" (or to
> be willing to think it has some special meaning for Vygotsky), and
> are unfamiliar with the discussions about units of analysis in the
> social sciences, so the challenge of understanding the Hegelian
> concept (never having read Hegel) is formidable. The tendency of
> people to cover up their confusion with neologs, utterly
> implausible claims and convoluted writing compounds the problem. I
> was lucky in having read Marx and Hegel (and Ilyenkov) before I
> ever read Vygotsky, and before I read any present-day
> interpretations or explanations of Vygotsky. I am sure if I had
> read that material in the reverse order I would be as confused as
> I believe almost everyone else is.
>
> with apologies,
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>
>
> mike cole wrote:
>
> The Russian language has more than a little ambiguity here as
> well, Andy.
> Check out David's translation and how/when Vygotsky moves from
> using
> edinitsa (translated as unit) to edinstvo (translated as
> unity). Then look at how google translate indicates the
> overlap between these two terms.
>
> Translations of Единица (edinitsa)
>
>
>
>
>
> unit
>
>
>
> блок, единица, подразделение, агрегат, узел, целое
>
>
>
>
>
> unity
>
>
>
> единство, единица, единение, сплоченность, согласие, слитность
>
>
>
>
> one
>
>
>
> единица, одиночка, число один
>
>
>
> Translations of единство (edinstvo)
>
> noun
>
>
>
>
> unity
>
>
>
> единство, единица, единение, сплоченность, согласие, слитность
>
>
>
>
> oneness
>
>
>
> единство, исключительность, тождество, единичность, согласие,
> одиночество
>
>
>
>
>
> solidarity
>
>
>
> солидарность, сплоченность, единство, общность, единение
>
>
>
>
>
> accord
>
>
>
>
>
> соответствие, согласие, соглашение, договоренность, аккорд,
> единство
>
>
>
>
>
>
> So far as I can tell, the Russians are no clearer on this
> matter than those trying to sort through the matter in English.
>
>
> mike
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Andy Blunden
> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:
>
> For sure Alfredo, Dewey seems to be suggesting that "an
> experience" is
> what we would call a unit of artistic creation or
> appreciation, and if
> this is the case, then certainly his concept of "an
> experience"
> would have
> a much wider application. But I am hesitant to go too far into
> this just
> now because (1) I don't think Dewey was himself entirely
> clear on this
> concept of "unit", and (2) most of the CHAT people who are
> participating
> in this discussion around perezhivanie are certainly confused
> about what
> Vygotsky meant by "unit." Vygotsky was not confused, but
> Nikolai
> Veresov
> has drawn my attention to the fact that even the
> authoritative Minnick
> translation of "Thinking and Speech" has, on occasion,
> mixed up
> 'unit' and
> 'unity' in the process of translating into English.
> So before we get into Dewey on units and experiences, I am
> very
> concerned
> that we are all very clear on what Vygotsky said on the
> subject!
> Andy
>
>
> > Thank you Andy for furthering the discussion. I was
> trying to
> quickly
> > follow the scheme of thinking presented in your paper when I
> typed that
> > "doing and undergoing" was a microcosm, and I realize
> now (and
> agree with
> > you) that that was not correct. If a unit is relative to
> "some
> complex
> > process whose analysis is at issue," I find the unit
> that Dewey
> proposes
> > in defining "/an/ experience" as being relative not only
> to the
> process of
> > producing/interpreting a work of art, but to the more
> general human
> > sense-full experience, as opposed to "incohate"
> experience. Is
> not there
> > something common to art-making in any making? I find
> formulations very
> > close to his notion of /an/ experience in "Experience and
> Education" and
> > in "Logic: theory of inquiry," where the complex process
> whose
> analysis is
> > at issue is not art. The most prevalent topic is that
> experience
> extends
> > both temporally and socially. In following up the
> discussion on
> unity and
> > unit, I suggest that what Dewey defines as /an/
> experience can
> be thought
> > as a microcosm of human sense-full experience during joint
> activity, and
> > that is the problem that I attempt to address my self in the
> episodes of
> > interest in my own research, which all have in common people
> together
> > doing things and thereby changing both themselves and their
> settings in
> > the making. I guess that a larger question would be how
> well the
> unit that
> > we may call /an/ experience retains all the aspects of
> the complex
> > phenomenon of sense-full experience in activity. I think
> we do
> part of the
> > work with regard to that discussion in the paper the link of
> which I have
> > given before by drawing possible connections between Dewey,
> Vygotsky, and
> > other phenomenological thinking. I think the issue of
> unit/unity is
> > important, and will continue elaborating on it in my further
> > thinking/writing/doing.
> >
> > Best,
> > Alfredo
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>
> > Sent: 04 July 2014 14:22
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of
> development
> >
> > Thank you, Alfredo, I think you have made a lot of
> progress in
> > clarifying these problems and these formulations I do
> find much more
> > satisfactory. Thank you, because in taking my apparently
> petty and
> > nit-picking criticism seriously, some real steps towards
> clarity
> have
> > been made. But there is still some more to do. :)
> >
> > Here's Dewey's "Having An Experience" by the way:
> >
>
> http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/an-experience.htm
> >
> > A unit is always *also a unity*. "An experience" is a
> unity in
> the sense
> > which Dewey so graphically describes, in that it marks
> itself
> off from
> > the general background of experience and has an inherent
> completeness
> > about it: "complete in itself, standing out because
> marked out
> from what
> > went before and what came after."
> >
> > And it is invariably is also a unity of disparate
> elements, such as
> > sound and meaning, recognition and self-consciousness,
> doing and
> > suffering,defect andf compensation, use and
> exchange-value, etc..
> > Generally, I think people recognise this aspect of
> units. What is I
> > think widely not understood is the relation of the unit
> to the whole
> > process.
> >
> > Unit is always a relative term, i.e., it is a unit of
> some complex
> > process whose analysis is at issue: the process at issue
> is seen
> to be
> > made up of a large number of said units. Your claim is
> that an
> > experience is "a unit of analysis for the relation
> between doing and
> > undergoing." But I find this "relation between doing and
> undergoing" an
> > entirely unclear concept. It sounds more like a
> readymade answer
> than a
> > question or problem to be solved. Usually, if there is a
> concept, there
> > is a word for it already at hand. Who asked for an
> analysis of the
> > relation-between-doing-and-undergoing? When Vygotsky
> posed the
> problem
> > of the relation of thinking and speaking this question
> already had a
> > long and well-known history in Western philosophy and
> psychology, and I
> > believe it was already understood to be related to the
> problem
> of the
> > intellect. I think Dewey was prompted to write this
> article by a
> > consideration of *art*: "Every work of art follows the
> plan of, and
> > pattern of, a complete experience, rendering it more
> intensely and
> > concentratedly felt."
> >
> > But Dewey's article has lately been picked up out of
> interest in
> > perezhivanie, hasn't it? For me, it was because Dewey
> reminded
> us that
> > "an experience" can have a meaning and power much like
> the Russian
> > perezhivanie, and that it is very different from
> "experience." So I
> > question this supposed definition of the problem - "the
> relation of
> > doing and undergoing." The unit of analysis is a singular
> concept of the
> > process as a whole, and if we do not have a provisional
> concept
> of the
> > process as a whole, then I think we are on very
> uncertain ground.
> >
> > Also, in the article you cited, I was at pains to point
> out that a
> > "unit" is *not* a "microcosm." Marx selected a commodity
> as the
> unit of
> > bourgeois society; if he had wanted a *microcosm* he
> would have
> selected
> > a capitalist firm (= a unit of capital), the *highest*
> product,
> a whole
> > "world" in which the entire process (bourgeois society =
> the world
> > market) is contained complete in miniature form - the
> most developed
> > relation of the whole process. The commodity only
> contains all the
> > phenomena of bourgeois society *in embryo* (=cell form).
> But did you
> > mean that "the relation of doing and undergoing" is the
> microcosm? Not
> > clear on that.
> >
> > You refer to "joint development". Is this the subject
> matter of
> > interest? What *is* the problem in fact? Until we are
> clear on that
> > units of analysis are not in the frame.
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *Andy Blunden*
> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
> >
> >
> > Alfredo Gil Jornet wrote:
> >> Initially, I meant unity of doing and undergoing in the
> sense
> that, in
> >> /an/ experience, the one aspect cannot be reduced to the
> >> other. So, doing and undergoing, as I read them in
> Dewey, and
> as you
> >> agree, constitute a unity. It is precisely in the
> difference/distance
> >> between the doing and the undergoing that an experience
> extends in
> >> time and action as a real, dynamic, but unitary
> phenomenon. I
> guess we
> >> all agree on this.
> >>
> >> I acknowledge my loose use of the term "unit" in the
> >> previous description, and understand your concern about
> it. So
> far, I
> >> have been using the notion "unit" to mean "unit of
> analysis."
> As unit,
> >> /an/ experience may be thought as "a product of
> analysis which,
> unlike
> >> elements, retains all the basic properties of the whole
> and which
> >> cannot be further divided without losing them." That is
> how we
> attempt
> >> to articulate it here in the context of science education:
> >>
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/sce.21085/
> I have
> >> further expanded those ideas in other works under review.
> >>
> >> However, after Andy raised concern about the difference
> between
> "unit"
> >> and "unity," I realized that I had not a clear-enough
> answer as
> to the
> >> differences between the two. So I quickly went to the
> literature to
> >> make my mind clearer before answering. Following an initial
> reading,
> >> here is my attempt to be more specific about it: One could
> argue that
> >> "an experience", rather than "experience" as general
> conception
> (and
> >> this difference may not be clear enough in any of my
> previous
> >> writings), could be thought of as a unit of analysis
> for the
> relation
> >> between doing and undergoing, which is a "microcosm" of
> human
> >> experience during episodes of joint development.
> Obviously, here I
> >> am trying to roughly follow a scheme you provide in
> "Outlines"
> (2009).
> >> Does this line of thought make sense?
> >>
> >> Thanks to this discussion, I realize that I need to
> make clearer
> >> statements about how the connections that I entertain
> between Dewey
> >> and Vygotsky in my dissertation constitute a "unit", a
> "substance", or
> >> neither of them. Thank you very much for opening this
> dimension of
> >> inquiry to me!
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Alfredo
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>
> >> Sent: 04 July 2014 07:25:45
> >> To: lchcmike@gmail.com <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>
> <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>>
> >> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Alfredo Gil Jornet
> >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of
> development
> >>
> >> Maybe, but Alfredo has been working with W-M Roth, and in a
> recent paper
> >> Roth claims to quote Vygotsky saying that experience is
> "the
> dynamic
> >> unit of affective and intellectual processes" (Roth's
> translation) and
> >> goes on to make it clear that this was not a slip of
> the pen,
> but he
> >> means "unit".
> >> 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/>
> >>
> >>
> >> mike cole wrote:
> >> > That is how I interpreted Alfredo, Andy.
> >> > (signed)
> >> >
> >> > an /in/-experienced oldtimer
> >> > mike
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 6:45 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:
> >> >
> >> > I am familiar with Dewey's work on this, Alfredo,
> and I
> too have
> >> > found it
> >> > very useful. That was not my problem. But
> thinking about
> it, I
> >> > suspect it
> >> > was just an English expression problem.
> >> > You said "experience is a unit of doing and
> undergoing".
> But I
> >> > think you
> >> > meant to say "experience is a unity of doing and
> undergoing,"
> >> which is
> >> > certainly true. Just as activity is a unity of
> consciousness and
> >> > behaviour, or identity is a unity of recognition and
> >> > self-consciousness,
> >> > etc.
> >> > But a *unit* is something different from *unity*.
> "Experience"
> >> in this
> >> > sense is not a unit at all; "an experience" can be a
> unit, but not
> >> > a unit
> >> > of doing and undergoing.
> >> >
> >> > Is that right, Alfredo?
> >> > Andy
> >> >
> >> > > Dewey, most extensively in chapter 3 of "Art as
> experience",
> >> makes a
> >> > > distinction between the general stream of
> experience,
> and an
> >> > experience,
> >> > > which, according to him, is the experience that
> "is a
> whole and
> >> > carries
> >> > > with it its own individualizing quality and
> self-sufficiency".
> >> > After the
> >> > > fact, an experience "has a unity that gives it its
> name, that
> >> > meal, that
> >> > > storm, that rupture of friendship", Dewey
> writes. He
> further
> >> > says that,
> >> > > within that unity, there is both an aspect of
> doing, of
> >> > initiation, and
> >> > > another of undergoing, "of suffering in its large
> sense". He
> >> further
> >> > > articulates the relation between the doing and the
> undergoing in
> >> > terms of
> >> > > "anticipation" and "consummation" "Anticipation" he
> writes "is
> >> the
> >> > > connecting link between the next doing and its
> outcome for
> >> > sense. What is
> >> > > done and what is undergone are thus reciprocally,
> >> cumulatively, and
> >> > > continuously instrumental to each other"
> >> > >
> >> > > Although in most passages these notes have a rather
> >> > individualistic taste,
> >> > > he goes on to clarify that there is a prominent
> public
> >> character in
> >> > > experience: "without external embodiment, an
> experience
> remains
> >> > > incomplete" he says. In the same chapter, he also
> argues that
> >> > "it is not
> >> > > possible to divide in a vital experience the
> practical,
> >> > emotional, and
> >> > > intellectual from one another." Both these
> conditions
> may make
> >> > it possible
> >> > > to draw connections between Dewey's notion of
> experience and
> >> > Vygotsky's
> >> > > perezivanie.
> >> > >
> >> > > In any case, I find interesting the dialectic Dewey
> proposes
> >> > between doing
> >> > > and undergoing as aspects of a minimal unit of
> sense-full
> >> experience
> >> > > because it allows for thinking of being
> immersed in a
> >> developmental
> >> > > situation in which the final form already
> exists before the
> >> > intellect
> >> > > grasps it, so that we do not need to put individual
> knowledge
> >> > > constructions as who puts the cart before the
> horse.
> >> > >
> >> > > But this is my reading, which may have obviated
> other
> aspects
> >> > that would
> >> > > preclude this reading?
> >> > > Hope this was of help.
> >> > > Best,
> >> > >
> >> > > Alfredo
> >> > > ________________________________________
> >> > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> >> > <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> >> > <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
> >> > <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>>
> >> > > Sent: 03 July 2014 17:17
> >> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV on language as a model of
> development
> >> > >
> >> > > Alfredo, what did you mean by:
> >> > >> ... as he argued, experience is a unit of
> doing and
> undergoing,
> >> > >
> >> > > Andy
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list