[Xmca-l] Re: Volkelt's diagram (LSV's HMF Vol 4)
Andy Blunden
ablunden@mira.net
Mon Jan 11 05:38:18 PST 2016
So far as I can see the Latin "momentum" diverged along two
paths somewhere around the 15th century. From the idea of a
moment (of time) we had an "important moment," that is, an
event with powerful repercussions and this lead to
"momentum" meaning the inertia of a moving body, i.e., its
power to affect things, and a measure of the power of bodies
which (like angular momentum) integrated the mass and
spatial dimensions, as well as mass and velocity, so the
measure of angular momentum was generalised across different
types of function, and then to high powers.
So the two streams of meaning have a common origin.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
On 12/01/2016 12:27 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote:
> Well, my understanding is that there isn't a hidden
> dimension to its usage in text. That was the reason for
> questioning it. But if you uncover something in the
> origins of the expression (your earlier email) then it
> would be interesting to know more.
>
> Best,
> Huw
>
>
>
> On 11 January 2016 at 13:21, Andy Blunden
> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
> I don't know where this is going, Huw.
> There are several quite distinct meanings of "moment."
> Some to do with short periods of time, some to do with
> large force. But there are literally dozens of
> different shades of meaning.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_(physics)
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_%28physics%29>
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
> On 11/01/2016 11:35 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote:
>> moment (n.)
>> <http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=moment&allowed_in_frame=0>
>> Look up moment at Dictionary.com
>> <http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=moment>
>> mid-14c., "very brief portion of time, instant,"
>> in moment of time, from Old French moment (12c.)
>> "moment, minute; importance, weight, value" or
>> directly from Latin momentum "movement, motion;
>> moving power; alteration, change;" also "short
>> time, instant" (also source of Spanish, Italian
>> momento), contraction of *movimentum, from
>> movere "to move" (see move
>> <http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=move&allowed_in_frame=0> (v.)).
>> Some (but not OED) explain the sense evolution of
>> the Latin word by notion of a particle so small
>> it would just "move" the pointer of a scale,
>> which led to the transferred sense of "minute
>> time division." Sense of "importance, 'weight' "
>> is attested in English from 1520s.
>>
>> Phrase never a dull moment first recorded 1889 in
>> Jerome K. Jerome's "Three Men in a Boat." Phrase
>> moment of truth first recorded 1932 in
>> Hemingway's "Death in the Afternoon," from
>> Spanish el momento de la verdad, the final
>> sword-thrust in a bull-fight.
>> momentum (n.)
>> <http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=momentum&allowed_in_frame=0>
>> Look up momentum at Dictionary.com
>> <http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=momentum>
>> 1690s, scientific use in mechanics, "quantity of
>> motion of a moving body," from Latin
>> momentum "movement, moving power" (see moment
>> <http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=moment&allowed_in_frame=0>).
>> Figurative use dates from 1782.
>>
>> This would imply something like "the manifest force
>> or expression at this point in time" or "the duration
>> of time for which this manifest force is constant".
>>
>> On 11 January 2016 at 12:17, Andy Blunden
>> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>>
>> No all the science-related meanings are derived
>> from either Integral of f(x) * (x to power n).
>> Torque is related to angular momentum which is an
>> integral of mass* distance from axis.
>> The interpreation this leads to is that each
>> "moment" expresses a property of the whole
>> function. A function can be represented either by
>> a series of values for each x, or by the series
>> of moments. The zero-th moment is the total mass,
>> the first moment is the "torque". Higher moments
>> arise when you are dealing with flexible systems,
>> or dynamic systems with inertia.
>>
>> YOu also get the term arising with power series,
>> I think, which is a kind of inverse of the above.
>>
>> yada yada yada,
>>
>> Andy
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>> On 11/01/2016 11:08 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote:
>>> Is torque being used here in the sense that the
>>> moon influences the tides? E.g. conceiving
>>> stages as pendulum like things that, when,
>>> considered together may appear as 'torque'
>>> applied to a base form. If so, then perhaps the
>>> meaning may be the same overall, i.e. a moment
>>> from one aspect appearing as torque in another.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Huw
>>>
>>> On 11 January 2016 at 01:59, Andy Blunden
>>> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> According to the Oxford English Dictionary,
>>> in sense 9. "moment" means "An essential
>>> element or significant aspect of a complex
>>> conceptual entity" first used in a
>>> translation of Kant's Critique of Pure
>>> Reason in 1838.
>>> But the OED also refers to "moment" in
>>> meaning 8c as "torque," so I guess that
>>> exposes a bit of Cole word play going on
>>> there, yes?
>>> Andy
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>> On 11/01/2016 12:36 PM, mike cole wrote:
>>>
>>> I found Martin's blog entry helpful,
>>> Andy. Still working on the phenomenology
>>> of the usage. I think the form of
>>> part-whole relation is what is at issue
>>> and "moments" in this sense are
>>> qualitatively distinct, marked, events.
>>> Events whose conventional meaning is
>>> torqued by the exception.
>>>
>>> still learning!
>>> mike
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Andy
>>> Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not at all clear about the
>>> context here, Mike.
>>> Huw mentioned Vygotsky using
>>> "instances" which he
>>> thought should have been "instants"
>>> and then David
>>> introduced "moments" and Hegel's use
>>> of "moments,"
>>> which was the subject of my comment.
>>>
>>> I did a search of "Thinking and
>>> Speech" and found that
>>> all bar one instance of the use of
>>> the word "moment"
>>> were in the sense of "at this moment
>>> in the story ..."
>>> The one odd reference is this one:
>>>
>>> "We have consistently taken a
>>> genetic approach to the
>>> analysis of our problem. We have,
>>> however, attempted to
>>> represent the *moments* of this
>>> genetic process in
>>> their
>>> mature, classic forms. The
>>> inevitable result is that we
>>> have diverged from the complex
>>> and twisting path that
>>> characterizes the actual
>>> development of the child’s
>>> concepts."
>>>
>>> It is possible that Vygotsky refers
>>> with "moment" here
>>> to the distinct modes of conception
>>> which were
>>> manifested in the child's activity,
>>> at different
>>> stages, but which are combined in
>>> the most developed
>>> pseudoconcept. It is a fact that
>>> associative
>>> complexes, collection complexes,
>>> chain complexes,
>>> diffuse complexes, and
>>> pseudocomplexes could not
>>> possibly manifest themselves as
>>> successive stages.
>>> Perhaps their *first appearance* in
>>> ontogenesis could
>>> form some kind of regular sequence,
>>> possibly, but it
>>> is also possible that Vygotsky saw
>>> these forms of
>>> association as "moments" of concept
>>> formation in the
>>> other sense of the word "moment"
>>> which is not
>>> interchangeable with "instant". But
>>> I couldn't say for
>>> sure.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>> On 11/01/2016 11:23 AM, mike cole wrote:
>>>
>>> The theoretical point seems
>>> interesting and worth
>>> clarifying. The differing
>>> interpretations have
>>> quite different implications.
>>> mike
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 4:10 PM,
>>> Andy Blunden
>>> <ablunden@mira.net
>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
>>>
>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually, Hegel does not use
>>> "moment" as meaning a
>>> stage, phase or step, David.
>>> He tends to use
>>> phase,
>>> category, stage or division
>>> for those concepts.
>>>
>>> Individual, Particular and
>>> Universal are typical
>>> examples of "moments" but
>>> these are not steps,
>>> phases
>>> or stages of the concepts,
>>> even though they
>>> are also
>>> exhibited in this way. Every
>>> concrete concept
>>> has all
>>> three moments. In a trade
>>> union, the members, the
>>> branches/divisions and the general
>>> secretary are
>>> individual, universal and
>>> particular moments. We
>>> cannot conceive of a union
>>> developing from an
>>> individual to a branch to a
>>> general secretary,
>>> can we?
>>>
>>> I will look into the origins
>>> of this expression. I
>>> have always just presumed it
>>> came from
>>> mathematics, as
>>> in the first, second, third,
>>> ... moments of a
>>> function, and I know Hegel
>>> did study this
>>> branch of
>>> mathematics, because he
>>> gives a lot of space
>>> to it in
>>> the Science of Logic in his
>>> critique of
>>> calculus. But
>>> I am probably quite wrong.
>>> I'll check.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>
>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>
>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>
>>> On 11/01/2016 4:32 AM, David
>>> Kellogg wrote:
>>>
>>> Huw:
>>>
>>> Yes, Vygotsky uses
>>> "instants" and even
>>> more often
>>> "moments", and the word
>>> "moment" sometimes means
>>> a stage, or a
>>> phase, or a
>>> step (as in the three
>>> "moments" of the formation of the concept in
>>> Hegel, as in "in
>>> itself", "for
>>> others", "for myself".
>>>
>>> One of the most
>>> difficult problems we had
>>> to solve
>>> in translating the
>>> Lectures on Pedology was
>>> that Vygotsky very
>>> clearly distinguishes three
>>> moments of speech
>>> development: indicative,
>>> nominative, and signifying.
>>> "Indicative" is often non-verbal, e.g. a
>>> pointing
>>> gesture. "Nominating" is
>>> ipso facto verbal,
>>> because it is the naming
>>> function: "every thing has a
>>> name". But "signifying"
>>> is much harder to pin
>>> down, and in one place
>>> Vygotsky actually says
>>> that it is
>>> synonymous with
>>> the adult understanding
>>> that anything can be
>>> named. So what is the
>>> difference between knowing that
>>> everything has a name and the knowledge
>>> that any
>>> thing can be named?
>>>
>>> I think that the
>>> distinction is just as
>>> subtle and
>>> just as significant
>>> as the distinction
>>> between pointing to
>>> something
>>> with a gesture, pointing
>>> to something with a word
>>> like "this" or
>>> "that",
>>> and pointing to something
>>> with a word like "apple"
>>> or "pear". If I
>>> say that
>>> "everything has a name",
>>> the name could be
>>> extremely general
>>> ("everything"
>>> or "thing") or it could
>>> be highly specific
>>> ("Huw" or "this
>>> computer"). But
>>> I don't yet have the
>>> idea that names are
>>> invented, and that
>>> therefore
>>> it is possible to name
>>> objects which do not
>>> exist, and therefore
>>> to bring
>>> into existence modes of
>>> pure abstract thinking
>>> through language.
>>> That's
>>> signifying, and it is
>>> indeed a new moment, or
>>> a new instant, in the
>>> lifelong process of speech
>>> development.
>>>
>>> David Kellogg
>>> Macquarie University
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at
>>> 4:04 PM, Huw Lloyd
>>>
>>> <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> <mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>>
>>>
>>> <mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> <mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thank you, David.
>>> That helps to explain a
>>> particular aspect that I thought
>>> Vygotsky was overlooking in the narrative,
>>> which is that
>>> stimuli can not
>>> only signify but
>>> also symbolise, i.e. they
>>> afford the kind of
>>> dynamics you
>>> have elucidated from
>>> Volkelt's schema.
>>>
>>> I have also noted
>>> that the translation of
>>> phrases like "instances of a
>>> process" is probably off the mark
>>> too. What
>>> is really meant, I
>>> believe, is
>>> "instants of a process". These have two
>>> rather different
>>> meanings from the
>>> perspective of thinking about processes.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Huw
>>>
>>> On 10 January 2016
>>> at 06:02, David Kellogg
>>>
>>> <dkellogg60@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>>> <mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com>>
>>> <mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> <mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Huw:
>>>
>>> Here's what Vygotsky really says:
>>>
>>> Если задача не превышает
>>> естественных сил
>>> ребенка, он справляется с ней
>>> непосредственным или примитивным
>>> способом.
>>> В этих случаях структура его
>>> поведения совершенно напоминает схему,
>>> нарисованную Фолькельтом.
>>>
>>> (Russian
>>>
>>> Collected Works, p. 117).
>>>
>>> This means (as nearly as I can
>>> make out):
>>> "If the task did not go beyond
>>> the natural capability of the
>>> child, he
>>> could deal with it in an
>>>
>>> unmediated
>>>
>>> or primitive method. In this
>>> cases, the
>>> structure of his behavior would
>>>
>>> be
>>>
>>> completely similar to the scheme as
>>> presented by Volkelt".
>>>
>>> I think there is no diagramme, at
>>> least
>>> not in the sense of a two
>>> dimensional graphic one can have a
>>> copy
>>> of. What Vygotsky is referring to
>>> is Volkelt's attempt to explain
>>> all child
>>> behavior as the result of an
>>> affectively tinged FUSION of
>>> perception
>>> and behavior, an affectively
>>> colored, unanalyzable, whole in which
>>> perception and behavior were
>>> absolutely inseparable. This was
>>> what Hans
>>> Volkelt concluded from a
>>>
>>> series
>>>
>>> of experiments that Vygotsky refers to
>>> repeatedly, both in HDHMF and in
>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>> Lectures on Pedology and elswhere.
>>>
>>> What Volkelt did was this: he had four
>>> baby bottles: one shaped like a
>>> triangle, one like a violin, one
>>> like a
>>> square, etc. They were all
>>> different colors as well. But three of
>>> them didn't have holes in the
>>>
>>> teat:
>>>
>>> you could see and smell the milk
>>> but you
>>> couldn't drink it. One did. He
>>> taught the infants to associate the
>>> drinking of milk and the feeling of
>>> satiation with one particular
>>> bottle, so
>>> that they would actually ignore
>>> the bottle unless it had all the
>>> characteristics: triangularity,
>>>
>>> blueness,
>>>
>>> etc. So Volkelt argued that from the
>>> child's point of view, he was not
>>> drinking milk but triangular blue
>>> milk.
>>> This kind of "affectively colored
>>> whole" is what Vygotsky refers to as
>>> "Volkelt's scheme", or "Volkelt's
>>> schemata".
>>>
>>> Volkelt's scheme came to a bad end. He
>>> eventually decided that we never
>>> grow out of unanalyzable affectively
>>> colored perception-behavior wholes,
>>> and this would explain the
>>> indivisible and
>>> inseparable devotion of the
>>> German volk to their Fuhrer. So in
>>> later
>>> work Vygotsky is very careful to
>>> distance himself from Volkelt even
>>> in his
>>> explanations of infant
>>>
>>> behavior:
>>>
>>> in the Lectures on Pedology he
>>> argues that
>>> ALL THREE layers of behavior
>>> (that is, instinct, habit, and
>>> intelligence) are present in infancy.
>>>
>>> David Kellogg
>>> Macquarie University
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 10:50 PM,
>>> Huw Lloyd
>>> <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> <mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>>
>>> <mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> <mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Does anyone have a copy of
>>> "Volkelt's
>>> diagram" to hand that is referred
>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>> in The History of the
>>> Development of
>>> Higher Mental Functions (1997,
>>>
>>> p.85
>>>
>>> and onwards in ch. 4)? I
>>> don't think
>>> a reference is given.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Huw
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> It is the dilemma of psychology
>>> to deal as a
>>> natural science with an
>>> object that creates history.
>>> Ernst Boesch
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal
>>> as a natural science with an
>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list