[Xmca-l] Re: Activity as Hyponym

[Haydi Zulfei]

You're so welcome , Henry Jaan ! Please don't compare me with David !!  Regards !
      From: HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com>
 To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> 
 Sent: Saturday, 28 February 2015, 7:32:57
 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Activity as Hyponym
   
David,
I would call the posts of you and Haydi performance art, as you and Annalisa have been discussing it. Is that weird? There is certainly art to it. You’re on stage. I assume it is happening all the time in the chat, and I usually miss it. But this interchange hit me in a sweet spot. The unshackled Haydi followed by David’s readings was great reading! Why is that so? It’s like reading an article in the Atlantic and being able to read the letters to the editor right away! Seriously here. Synchronicity informed diachronically, since both Haydi and David are Vygotskian translators and interpreters. For those of us who haven’t learned to swim in Russian. 
Henry
  


> On Feb 27, 2015, at 5:51 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Some of the confusion is mine, I'm afraid. It began with a very confusing
> note I wrote yesterday. I was trying to explain a terminological problem in
> CHAT. In Vygotsky and Volosinov, "meaning" is a superordinate term (a
> hypernym) but it also a subordinate type of meaning (a hyponym):
> 
>            MEANING (znachenie)
> 
> meaning (znachenie)    sense  (smysl)
> 
> It seemed to me that the same thing has happened with activity:
> 
> 
>              MEDIATING ACTIVITY
> 
> tool use (orudnie)            sign use (znak)
> 
> 
> The problem is that we use "activity" for both tool use and sign use, or,
> worse, we use "tools/signs" as a superordinate term (a hypernym) and as a
> subordinate term (a hyponym).
> 
> Now you can see that these are two different mistakes. Conflating tools and
> signs is one mistake, and using "activity" for both mediating activity and
> for tool-bearing activity is a different mistake. But I confused them.
> 
> Haydi sometimes communicates with me off list (and in fact it's entirely
> possible that this message was mostly intended for me) and I understand
> what he says very well, because it is part of a longstanding discussion we
> have been having about what Vygotsky means when he says "In the beginning
> was the act".  To me, this means that the act is really only the beginning,
> and we need to move on in our theorization. But to Haydi it really means
> that the act is the basis of everything (and in particular the basis of
> social activism, where counts is deeds and not words).
> 
> So here's how I read Haydi. But Haydi should correct me if I have him wrong.
> 
> HAYDI SAYS:
> 
> I said the dominant province of Vygotsky's work ; that means all through
>> his works , he uses terms and expressions which denote or connote "action"
>> : behaviour , operation , activity , work as labour proper and these are
>> not things which might escape your good attention .
> 
> I READ: The reason why Vygotsky reiterates words like action, behavior,
> activity, work and labor is that this is the basis of everything, including
> language.
> 
> HAYDI SAYS: Then denial of action is denial of what Vygotsky has taken for
> granted .
> 
> 
> I READ: To try to dissolve the action component of sign use is to deny the
> important role of action and to deny what is always there implicit in
> Vygotsky's treatment of sign use: communicative action is not simply
> communication (as it is in Habermas). More importantly, communicative
> action is a form of action (as it is in Marx).
> 
> HAYDI SAYS: Vygotsky does have an unending love for word and literature ,
> art in
>> general ; Then we should not take him as being guilty because he either
> did
>> not have time or he did not want to deal with the analysis of "action" .
>> 
> 
> I READ: It is true that Vygotsky is fascinated by the word, most viisible
> in Psychology of Art and other texts on the arts (e.g. the essay on the
> dramatic art of the actor). But in all of these action is taken for granted
> (see especially the dramatic art of the actor).
> 
> HAYDI SAYS: In his "Higher Psychological Functions" , he first talks about
> an
>> environment , he stresses that the environment necessitates use of tools
>> even for the months-old child , then he elucidates in details the
> influence
>> of speech upon each function . It's my assumption that Vygotsky implies
>> that when everything is in place , that is , when by the blessings of
>> speech , all functions are ripe and rich and replete with influences ,
> then
>> the gown-up , adolescent , adult , man becomes ready to go fully for
>> transformations . And I don't mean : word ends , action begins ; no linear
>> advancement . through zigs and zags , heading towards will be the agenda .
>> 
> 
> I READ: The main message of HDHPF is that the higher psychological
> functions are only RELATIVELY higher; they are still very much linked to
> lower functions, and the link is of a genetic nature. But that doesn't
> simply mean that the higher functions arise out of the lower functions; it
> also means that they can transform the lower functions in their own image.
> That is what happens: it's not the case that action just takes up where
> words fail us, any more than it is the case that man's physical evolution
> stopped when his cultural evolution began.
> 
> HAYDI SAYS I ask : is that the case that you think that Vygotsky thought
> that with
>> rich , ripe psychological functions a la speech influence , man was
>> finished with everything to continue living ?? I'm afraid not ! Man now
> had
>> to take one very big step further , farther . To have ideals , to let them
>> penetrate cycles of activities to provide products to satisfy needs
> because
>> the richest , ripest talk will not satisfy life needs .
>> 
> 
> I READ: Nor is it the case that physical evolution is there as a kind of
> "Plan B" when our cultural Plan A fails us. On the contrary: what language
> does is to allow potential action to become real. But even the richest,
> ripest talk does not satisfy life's needs; it must be completed by action.
> 
> HAYDI SAYS: > Capitalism today though decaying , has opted for horrendous
> deeds and
>> wants to go ahead with these deeds through futile talks . Destructive
>> arsenals are not for defense as coming from rich beneficial talks ; they
>> won't wait for the United Nations' benevolent tribunes nor for the written
>> files therefrom , either .
> 
> I READ: Capitalists are aware of this: they would like very much to
> relegate the forces of progress to pure talk.
> 
> 
> HAYDI SAYS:  The United Actions of all the oppressed peoples of the world
> may wayward
>> another big disaster !!
>> and that requires already agreed upon talks ; otherwise no deed will be a
>> crowned one !
> 
> I READ: Oppressed people everywhere must understand that although
> phylogenetically the deed is crowned with the word, sociohistorically,
> things are the other way around: the words that have only been able to
> provide a sketch of "the good life" in art must be crowned with the deed.
> 
> David Kellogg
> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies