[Xmca-l] Re: units of analysis? LSV versus ANL

[Andy Blunden]

No, LSV is quite right, Huw. You and I can go through the same sequence 
of events, but if, for example, the events really get under your skin, 
and perhaps due to past experiences, or to some sensitivity or another, 
it really shakes you up and causes you to dwell on the experience, work 
over it and reflect on it, then most likely you will make a personal 
development. If perhaps on other hand, maybe because of some prejudice I 
had, the same experience just went like water off a duck's back for me 
and I didn't care tuppence about the experience and just simply turned 
to next business, then I will not make a development.

It is *only* the "subjective" side of experience and the *reflection* of 
"objective" relations/events that forms personal development. Only. And 
that is LSV's point.

And can I just echo Martin and David's observation that consciousness 
before language was well-known and foundational to Vygotsky, and 
consequently consciousness other than language. And Julian and Mike's 
observation that "the ideal" lies ultimately in social practices, the 
doing-side of which give content and meaning to speech which speech 
would lack outside its being part of those activities. Vygotsky knew 
this, and this was why he introduced a range artifacts derived from the 
wider culture, as mediating elements, into social interaction.

So ANL is going along with the still widely held prejudice that Vygotsky 
was *just* all about language. Not true.

Andy
https://www.academia.edu/7511935/The_Problem_of_the_Environment._A_Defence_of_Vygotsky
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/


Huw Lloyd wrote:
> ....
>
> Hence ANL is right to impute (metaphysical) idealistic tendencies to this
> paper of LSV's.  Because to base the development on subjective emotional
> experience is idealistic.  ANL, conversely, refers to the relativity of
> experience upon activity.  It does not help that LSV refers to his norms as
> ideals and that all of the examples he provides are about speech
> communication.  It is ripe for misinterpretation as an idealistic paper.
>
> Best,
> Huw
>
>   
>