[Xmca-l] Re: units of analysis? LSV versus ANL
Huw Lloyd
huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
Fri Oct 17 18:52:35 PDT 2014
On 18 October 2014 02:20, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> Which only means that Vygotsky did not attempt to create a Social Theory,
> only a Psychology.
> But in creating a General Psychology, he left us a paradigm for the human
> sciences. ANL attempted to carry that through to create a Psychology which
> was equally a Social Theory, but in my view he was largely unsuccessful.
> But to have created a Psychology rather than a Theory of Everything does
> not make one an Idealist, just a specialist.
>
>
Does he state this aim somewhere? That might be interesting to look at.
Best,
Huw
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>
>
> Huw Lloyd wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 18 October 2014 01:48, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:
>> 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/
>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list