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

[Huw Lloyd]

On 18 October 2014 02:56, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> He? ANL or LSV.
> LSV states his aim to create a General Psychology in "Historical Crisis"
> http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/crisis/psycri13.htm
>
> ANL, I think the aim of a creating general theory of human activity was
> always meant to be interdisciplinary. Although for very good reasons it has
> only ever been taken up by Psychologists, I think it is very obviously
> interdisciplinary.
>
>
Yes, ANL.  Did he state an attempt to provide a social theory.  Seems not?

Best,
Huw


> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>
>
> Huw Lloyd wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 18 October 2014 02:20, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:
>> 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/
>>     <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>
>>
>>     Huw Lloyd wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>         On 18 October 2014 01:48, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
>>         <mailto:ablunden@mira.net> <mailto: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/>
>>             <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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>