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

[Huw Lloyd]

On 18 October 2014 01:48, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
But does ANL refute this?  He is simply asserting that experience is
derivative to activity, not that meaningful things don't follow from
experience.


> 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 it is ANL's point that these experiences arise in activity.  Note that
LSV doesn't provide a medium for their formation, he simply refers to them
as forms.


>
> 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.
>

I would read these in terms of the opening paragraph ("propositions that
have been connected to a unified system, but are far from equivalent") and
then there is the politics of survival.

Best,
Huw


>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>