[Xmca-l] Re: Why Doesn't Vygotsky Use "Microgenesis"?

[Huw Lloyd]

On 20 October 2016 at 22:26, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:

> Huw: Welcome back! We missed you.  I keep trying to download your paper,
> but academia.edu just sets up an account for me instead. I already have an
> account, thank you very much, and I just want to see your paper. What do I
> do?
>

log in?

I'll respond on the maker/prototyping thread.

Best,
Huw



>
> Mike: I didn't mean to suggest that you were in any way trying to make
> light of my mother's dementia;  I didn't even mean to suggest that her fate
> was particularly tragic (I get carried away by it sometimes, but she
> doesn't any more). Yet I think that the very fact that her fate evokes
> those feelings in me and in others, whereas we would not feel this way
> about a real two-year-old, does suggest that time's arrow is a very real
> part of our interpersonal ontogenesis.
>
> Yes, I think the "Angelus Novus" (both Klee and Benjamin) is apposite:
> human progress is real, but it is very hard to believe that when you are in
> the thick of it and you don't really have a clear sense of how it is all
> going to come out. But that needn't be true of xmca postings, so let me try
> to sort out some of the points I was trying to make.
>
> a) I was comparing the deterioration of higher psychological functions to
> Zaza's notion of disinheritance, not to prototyping. I see the two as
> distinct, and it seems to me that the difference is precisely that the
> former is retroleptic (it harkens back to a previous, less developed form)
> and the latter is proleptic (it brings the future into the present). For
> example, using a washing machine to store rice because there isn't any
> power is an example of disinheritance: it is retroleptic, because it
> harkens back to a non-electrified, subsistence agriculture past. But using
> the contents of a rubbish bin to create a prosthetic device that allows men
> to nurse their newborn children is an example of prototyping: it is
> proleptic, because it enables a neo-formation: a function that is "newly
> built and not previously present in the prior steps of development"
> (Vygotsky's lecture on early childhood).
>
> b) I was trying to show that sociogenesis and phylogenesis are different in
> principle: they aren't just different in timescale (i.e. I think that
> sociogenesis is not just a kind of fast-forward phylogenesis). The Nazi era
> you evoke is a good example: the Nazis believed that their eugenic policies
> (the extermination of the weak, the mentally ill, and of course
> the racially inferior, i.e. you and me) were simply a way of speeding up a
> natural process. Yes, human progress since the replacement of hunting and
> gathering with herding and growing has been checkered: it has been, for the
> most part, a natural process rather than a designed one. But public health
> (I mean preventive rather than curative medicine) and universal literacy (I
> mean compulsory primary education) are not equivocal in their nature
> precisely because they are proleptic; I don't think it's possible to be
> agnostic or ambivalent about the expansion of human potential that they
> have brought about: more people live longer and get more done, and that is
> the Spinozan definition of "good". These unequivocal human advances were
> enabled, not by people trying to speed up the process of natural selection
> and extinction, but rather by people trying to overcome them. Public health
> and universal literacy benefit the very young and the very old
> disproportionately at first, but we all benefit when the level of public
> contagion and the level of ignorance in cultural and political discourse is
> reduced. Besides, we were all once very young, even if some of us will
> never be very old. So it seems to me that sociogenesis is never just a
> concentration of phylogenesis.
>
> c) I think that ontogenesis and sociogenesis are also different in
> principle and not simply in timescale. Take a look at this (warning: people
> with progressive, child-centred views on teaching children will find it
> hard to watch!):
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwPPWnTrUs0
>
> A Chinese family is teaching their four-year-old the multiplication tables.
> She is pretty good at first, but she keeps getting stuck at "three times
> five is fifteen". Her mother makes her repeat it three or four times. This
> actually makes the problem a little worse because "three times five" gets
> stuck in her head and she gets confused when she tries to talk about four,
> five, and six times five. Finally, she decides that "three times five" is
> too difficult, although of course using the method of rote memorization we
> really cannot say that it is any more difficult than any of the others, and
> her tears, barely suppressed throughout, overcome her. Now, at her age, my
> niece (who is now college age) was already using an abacus (and she was not
> good at rote memo as a result). But at that age, my wife (who is now nearly
> fifty) was still playing jacks with the ankle bones of sheep; my
> mother-in-law (who died three years ago) was herding cattle, and if we go
> back further we get to the many generations of Chinese women for whom
> education was unthinkable. It's not just that education has been speeded
> up: it's that it has been in many ways reversed--initially a natural
> process clearly related to production and reproduction, it then became a
> process of using extra-mental signs (ankle bones and abacuses), and now an
> attempt to proceed immediately to rote internalization. It's not just a
> quantitative change; it's that the very path of development has changed,
> precisely because of the previous paths of development (as Arturo would
> say, the existence of the L1 ensures that L2 is not just a recapitulation).
> It appears that with ontogenesis too is not a concentration of
> sociogenesis.
>
> d) I think that learning and development are similarly different. That
> is, learning is not just a distillation of pre-existing or of hypothetical
> development but in some ways a negation and sublation of it. Learning and
> development are different for all the reasons that Vygotsky argues in
> Chapter Six of Thinking and Speech: learning is a more general notion, it
> is more external, it is less volitional and less consciously aware;
> development is age specific, it is part the structuration and
> restructuration of a whole psychological system, it occurs at the
> personality end of the pole connecting the child to the environment rather
> than the environmental end, and it is the result of expansion of
> personality. So when learning leads development (as in Franklin's
> case) there is a certain clash: Franklin has to set aside a mode of
> learning and a skill set that has become natural to him and develop a new
> formation instead.
>
> If we want comparisons with other timescales, this clash is where we should
> look: it is comparable to when children grow up to be themselves rather
> than their parents, or when humans learn to adapt the environment to
> themselves rather than adapt to it. It's not simply the case that learning
> is development writ small, or a development on a very short timescale:
> there is a qualitative, structural difference between learning and
> development, because one of them is led by others and tends to the
> retroleptic (because others are often interested in social reproduction),
> and the other led by the child (who has other things on her or his mind).
> But if learning and development are as different in kind as evolution and
> social progress, or social progress and child development--and I believe
> that they truly are--we cannot say that learning is simply "microgenesis",
> the microscopic study of development that the Leipzig school of
> Ganzheitpsychologie school had in mind. It is interesting that the Leipzig
> school was mostly interested in lower level psychological functions (e.g.
> perception) and perhaps also non-coincidental that most of them became
> ardent Nazis (Felix Krueger, Eric Jaensch, Hans Volkelt, Narziss Ach,
> Oswald Kroh and others).
>
> David Kellogg
> Macquarie University
>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 5:58 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Apropos of the wreckage of sense-making and development in relation to
> AT,
> > the following may provide some historical clarification:
> >
> > https://www.academia.edu/24660665/A_Comparison_of_
> > Seven_Historical_Research_Orientations_within_CHAT_up_to_2001_
> >
> > Best,
> > Huw
> >
> > On 20 October 2016 at 01:27, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > I did not intend to demean your mother's situation, David.
> > > And the following makes your examples concrete:
> > >
> > >  I think that the three
> > > strategies I gave you (pronouns, delight that masks astonishment, and
> > > avoiding explanations) really are rooted in the lower psychological
> > > functions and not in higher functions:* pronominal meaning can be
> simply*
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *indicative rather than nominative, delight is an example of her
> > > inabilityto divide affect from will, and avoiding "why" is an example
> of
> > > the loss ofsemantic meaning and reliance on the visual purview alone.
> The
> > > last time Itook language samples from her, they were comparable to
> those
> > of
> > > a two yearold. *
> > >
> > > But if one adopts your view, why do you liken the deteriorization of
> her
> > > higher psychological functions to the kind of work around
> > > illustrated by prototyping under difficult conditions?
> > >
> > > *Perhaps its because you view sociogenesis as  "the very*
> > > *opposite: public health, compulsory education, and the knowledge that
> > > it​ is precisely our ability to provide circuitous ways of helping the
> > > very​ young and the very old that will ultimately make life better for
> > > everybody,and not simply the very young and very old.*
> > >
> > > *​*With respect to public health the evidence I know of indicate that
> the
> > > agricultural revolution, and subsequent urbanization led to a
> > > deteriorization of life expectancy and health for the population as a
> > whole
> > > (however much it benefited the elites). *​*(As a priveleged member of
> the
> > > privileged classes I would have been dead several times in the last
> > couple
> > > of decades had it not been for modern medicine-- my younger brother
> died
> > 40
> > > years before me of pancreatitis which is now routinely treatable).
> > >
> > >
> > > The high high and highest level of civilization of Germany in 1930 did
> > > nothing to prevent the rise of Hitler and its aftermath -- and we can
> see
> > > that scenario playing out daily in the US at present,,,, hopefully to a
> > > different conclusion.
> > >
> > > With respect to the microgenesis/ontogeny issue, I gave yet to figure
> out
> > > the source of your confidence in their dissimilarity. I brought up
> > Franklin
> > > in the blocks (again - its a part of your ontogeny but not that of most
> > who
> > > participate on xmca at present) because it seems to be an example of
> > > microgenesis-as-developmental change.
> > >
> > > With respect to the idea that humans now exhibit the
> > >  ability to provide circuitous ways of helping the very
> > > ​
> > > young and the very old that will ultimately make life better for
> > > everybody,*and
> > > not simply the very young and very old.*
> > > *​ ​-- *I really am not sure
> > > what you are referring to.
> > >
> > > As always, your ideas are interesting and enlightening, even when I do
> > not
> > > properly understand them. Exhibiting my ignorance has the virtue of
> > > provoking the conditions for deeper understanding. My likening your
> > > mother's loss of semantic meaning to my (so far normal) "senior
> moments"
> > > did not envision an (almost) total loss of functions, higher and lower
> by
> > > Vygotky's reckoning. It is as if the multiple layers of history to be
> > seen
> > > in Rome were reduced by war and weather to the bottom-most stratum of
> the
> > > pre-Etruscan.
> > >
> > > ​mike​
> > >
> > > PS-- With regard to cultural-historical/societal genesis Benjamin's
> > Angelus
> > > Novus often comes to mind.
> > >
> > >  A Klee painting "Angelus Novus" shows an angel looking as though he is
> > > about to move away from something he is fixedly contemplating. His eyes
> > are
> > > staring, his mouth is open, his wings are spread. This is how one
> > pictures
> > > the
> > >
> > > angel of history. His face is turned toward the past. Where we
> perceive a
> > > chain
> > > ​
> > > of events, he sees one single
> > > ​
> > > catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage upon
> > > ​
> > >
> > > wreckage and hurls it in front of his feet. The an
> > > ​ ​
> > > gel would like to stay, awaken
> > > ​
> > > the dead, and make whole what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing
> > > ​
> > > from Paradise; it has got caught in his wings with such violence that
> the
> > > angel
> > > ​
> > > can no longer close them. This storm irresistibly propels him into the
> > > future
> > > ​
> > > to which his back is turned, while the pile of debris before him grows
> > > skyward.
> > >
> > > This storm is what we call progress. (pp. 257-58)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ​​
> > >
> > >
> > > PS--
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:15 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Mike:
> > > >
> > > > My mother was a psychologist too--like you, trained as a
> behaviourist,
> > > but
> > > > unlike you she got off into Piaget in the early sixties. Then she
> moved
> > > on
> > > > to other things: she wrote a biography of Ada, Countess of Lovelace,
> > > which
> > > > was published by MIT Press and got her some notoriety, mostly because
> > she
> > > > showed that Byron's daughter, who everyone has assumed to be a kind
> of
> > > > feminist icon and the world's first computer programmer, didn't
> > actually
> > > > know any mathematics! She told me a lot about Piaget and Lawrence
> > > Kohlberg
> > > > (who she briefly studied with). But I was unable to interest her in
> > > > Vygotsky or in cultural historical psychology: she saw it, perhaps
> > > > correctly, as nothing more than an attempt to prolong what she
> > considered
> > > > the crazy Bolshevism of my youth.
> > > >
> > > > Herr first response to losing her higher mental functions (when we
> > walked
> > > > to the Tate Art Gallery near her home in London and she forgot her
> way
> > > > home) was simply horror. She went through a difficult period of
> terrors
> > > > (curiously, mostly concerned with money, of which she still has a
> great
> > > > deal more than she needs). Now she has stabilized (and she is
> actually
> > > much
> > > > happier than I ever remember her). But she has completely forgotten
> > that
> > > > she ever had children, doesn't know her age or history, and also
> lacks
> > > > control over basic physiological functions. I think that the three
> > > > strategies I gave you (pronouns, delight that masks astonishment, and
> > > > avoiding explanations) really are rooted in the lower psychological
> > > > functions and not in higher functions: pronominal meaning can be
> simply
> > > > indicative rather than nominative, delight is an example of her
> > inability
> > > > to divide affect from will, and avoiding "why" is an example of the
> > loss
> > > of
> > > > semantic meaning and reliance on the visual purview alone. The last
> > time
> > > I
> > > > took language samples from her, they were comparable to those of a
> two
> > > year
> > > > old.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately is the word! And yet...perhaps this is something else
> we
> > > can
> > > > all learn from Vygotsky. I don't just mean the way he faced death: he
> > > died
> > > > young, at the very height of his powers, and he had been practicing
> > dying
> > > > for the whole of his adult life, so the comparison with my mother is
> > > > manifestly unfair. I mean first of all the way that Vygotsky really
> > does
> > > > use "pathogenesis", not as a new form of development but rather as a
> > way
> > > of
> > > > examining the real prior processes of development (which, as a
> > Spinozan,
> > > he
> > > > believed always involved the expansion of potential rather than its
> > > > contraction). That's why Vygotsky ends almost every single chapter in
> > the
> > > > second part of HDHMF with a pathological example, why never gives up
> > > > on "defektology", and I also think that is why he started studying
> > > medicine
> > > > even when he knew there was no hope for himself: it offers a way of
> > > looking
> > > > at the lower layers of development and how they subtend or fail to
> > > subtend
> > > > the higher ones.
> > > >
> > > > The second thing, though, was what I think he discovered through his
> > > > pathogenetic analyses: that there is a very real difference between
> > > > phylogenesis and sociogenesis, between sociogenesis and
> > ontogenesis...and
> > > > also, as I am now quite sure, between ontogenesis and microgenesis.
> In
> > > > phylogenesis: descent through modification--i.e. through the ruthless
> > > > destruction of individuals and whole species. In sociogenesis, the
> very
> > > > opposite: public health, compulsory education, and the knowledge that
> > it
> > > > is precisely our ability to provide circuitous ways of helping the
> very
> > > > young and the very old that will ultimately make life better for
> > > everybody,
> > > > and not simply the very young and very old. The end of ontogenesis is
> > not
> > > > simply death--it is the decline that it inevitable after roughly the
> > age
> > > > that Vygotsky died. But with literacy, we are able to pass on our
> very
> > > best
> > > > to the next generation. I don't know if Vygotsky really believed that
> > > these
> > > > last lectures of his would be translated and read by thousands of
> > > teachers
> > > > in some totally foreign land eight decades after his death--he
> believed
> > > > in internationalism, so I think it's at least possible that he did.
> But
> > > > whether he believed it or not, that is what is going to happen, and
> > it's
> > > > why I think that cultural-historical psychologists, unlike
> Piagetians,
> > > can
> > > > face decline and death with a certain equanimity and acceptance.
> > > >
> > > > But it is also why I'm not really sure that Dorothy Kellogg Stein's
> > > > biography of Ada Lovelace was such a terrible mistake, Mike. When I
> > take
> > > it
> > > > off the shelf and read it, I  can still hear her voice, feel her
> > > razor-like
> > > > intellect, and even remonstrate with her individualistic and
> > biologizing
> > > > psychology. When I go and actually visit her at Lord Wandsworth's
> Home
> > > for
> > > > Aging Jewry in Clapham I cannot.
> > > >
> > > > David Kellogg
> > > > Macquarie University
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 5:17 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > David -
> > > > >
> > > > > I think it is unfortunate to link workarounds with a loss of higher
> > > > > psychological functions. Again, it seems like ontogeny
> recapitulates
> > > > > history. The end of ontogeny is death. Ditto history?
> > > > >
> > > > > By any account I can think of, your mother is using higher higher
> > > > > psychological functions to work around the inability to retrieve
> > > > vocabulary
> > > > > at a conventional level of abstraction. I am of an age where the
> same
> > > > > problem can be noticed. Nice that I can, for the time being,
> > understand
> > > > > enough to be able to study development in decline in real life in
> > > > addition
> > > > > to experiencing it. Hmm, that means I have some higher higher
> > functions
> > > > to
> > > > > draw upon!
> > > > >
> > > > > In our own work, the workarounds needed to solve the failure of a
> > > gifted,
> > > > > "promising" technology under high pressure to succeed created both
> a
> > > > > successful product and resulted in productive education for all
> > > involved.
> > > > >
> > > > > To me, a great example of pathogenisis is the use of the highly
> > > > developed,
> > > > > highly admired, highly financed, digital technologies of
> cyberspace.
> > > > > Clearly an advance over atomic bombs- cleaner, faster, more
> > efficient.
> > > > >
> > > > > Where I think there is something distinctly unusual in Zaza's
> > > prototyping
> > > > > example is that the prototyping itself, even if it
> > > > > had been accomplishable easily with strong technological/resource
> > > > backing,
> > > > > is a work around for the inability to confront directly the
> cultural
> > > > > beliefs that make it shameful for a woman with HIV to bottle feed
> her
> > > > baby.
> > > > > We rarely discuss the power of cultural norms in constraining
> > cultural
> > > > > change even when the current practices threaten reproduction of the
> > > > social
> > > > > group. It seems, perhaps, an intractable problem. The US appears
> > unable
> > > > to
> > > > > give up on putting water in disposable plastic bottles.
> Pathogenesis?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll follow my habit of sorting things out by responding vis a vis
> > > > > Franklin in Larry's note below. I will respond on a thread called
> > > > > microgenesis/ontogenesis.
> > > > >
> > > > > Compensatorily yours.
> > > > > mike
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 1:15 PM, David Kellogg <
> dkellogg60@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Mike likes a discussion to be, as Bernstein put it, well framed
> and
> > > > well
> > > > > > classified; or at least he likes the threads to be well
> > disentangled
> > > > and
> > > > > > properly subject lined. But perhaps we shouldn't give up on the
> > "The
> > > > > > Prototyping Mind" too quickly! As you can see from Molly's
> careful
> > > > > perusal
> > > > > > and forceful restatement of Zaza's major themes, there is still a
> > lot
> > > > in
> > > > > > Zaza's prototyping bin to talk about.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The one that interests me, that I think is relevant to the
> > > > "microgenesis"
> > > > > > thread, is what learning means when it means adapting to
> > > > > anti-development.
> > > > > > For example, there are undoubtedly work-arounds that people use
> > when
> > > > > their
> > > > > > higher psychological functions start to shut down (I watched my
> > > mother
> > > > do
> > > > > > quite a few of these, addressing everyone as "you" instead of
> using
> > > > > names,
> > > > > > reacting to novel situations with a delight which effectively
> hides
> > > her
> > > > > > astonishment, and above all refraining from trying to understand
> > the
> > > > > > reasons for present situations).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Similarly, there are ontogenetic work-arounds that people use
> when
> > > > > > commodity production shuts down. But in both cases, we have a
> kind
> > of
> > > > > > development which forgoes time's arrow; we have a notion of
> > > development
> > > > > > that works backwards and forwards (like the laws of physics as
> > > opposed
> > > > to
> > > > > > the laws of thermodynamics). I won't say that suggests relativism
> > > (that
> > > > > > would be, I think, too moralistic an argument, and it is a rabbit
> > > hole
> > > > we
> > > > > > have been down already anyway). But it suggests an atomism that I
> > > > > disagree
> > > > > > with (in addition to eschewing time, the laws of physics don't
> > > combine
> > > > > > matter and meaning the way that the laws of thermodynamics do!)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mike has offered Franklin as an example of a Zoped before (I
> > remember
> > > > > once
> > > > > > thinking that he directed it to ME as a way of getting ME to
> think
> > a
> > > > bit
> > > > > > about listening to others on this list, but in fact he's used it
> in
> > > > print
> > > > > > on at least one occasion). Whenever he offers it, he does the
> exact
> > > > > > opposite of what he usually does with xmca threads: instead of
> > asking
> > > > us
> > > > > to
> > > > > > disentangle threads, he invites us to combine them. Franklin is
> > > > learning
> > > > > > (to listen to others). But he is also developing, on at least
> three
> > > > > counts:
> > > > > > by learning to listen to others, he is acquiring new forms of
> > meaning
> > > > > > potential; by learning to recognize himself when it is "played
> > back"
> > > to
> > > > > > him, he is acquiring a new form of reflecting on experience; and
> > > (this
> > > > is
> > > > > > the one I really want to talk about) he is learning that play is
> > not
> > > > > simply
> > > > > > the manipulation of objects but also the manipulation of social
> > roles
> > > > > > according to abstract rules (such as reciprocity and mutuality).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now, you can see that I'm trying to disentangle things that are
> not
> > > > > really
> > > > > > that distinct (reciprocity is really a form of serial mutuality,
> > and
> > > > both
> > > > > > of them are simply abstract forms of listening to others). The
> > > Vygotsky
> > > > > > lectures I'm working with are a little similar: in his work on
> the
> > > > Crisis
> > > > > > at Three (Franklin's Crisis, I suspect), he is trying to
> > disentangle
> > > > the
> > > > > > "seven stars" of bad behaviour (folk concepts that nursemaids and
> > > > mothers
> > > > > > use--I notice there is even a Russian Wikipedia page!) from what
> he
> > > > > thinks
> > > > > > is the key neoformation of Three, the separation of affect and
> > will.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For example, negativism is not just saying "no". It's saying "no"
> > > when
> > > > > the
> > > > > > child really wants to say "yes", because although the child wants
> > to
> > > > say
> > > > > > "yes", the others in the social milieu also want him to say
> "yes",
> > > and
> > > > > the
> > > > > > child is more interested in self-assertion than in
> > > self-gratification.
> > > > > > Obstinacy is not just tenacity. It's actually the negation of
> > > > negativism:
> > > > > > saying "yes" when the child really wants to "no", or maybe "who
> > > > cares?",
> > > > > > simply because the child has already said "yes" and once again
> the
> > > > child
> > > > > is
> > > > > > more interested in will than in affect. And so on.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How is this connected with the next zone of development? Perhaps
> > the
> > > > next
> > > > > > zone of development is preschool, and preschool depends on the
> > > > separation
> > > > > > of the semantic and the visio-graphic field of action in play. If
> > so,
> > > > > > Franklin's ability to interpret the teacher's imitation of his
> own
> > > > > actions
> > > > > > is a "trailer" of that next zone of development and no mere act
> of
> > > > > > learning.  Or, maybe this is happening in a preschool, and the
> next
> > > > zone
> > > > > of
> > > > > > development is actually the Crisis at Seven. If so, Franklin's
> > > ability
> > > > to
> > > > > > recognize himself is a "trailer" of the next zone of development:
> > > > acting
> > > > > a
> > > > > > role that is not really a role, but in fact a prototype self.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But that's my problem, Molly. What do I do when the prototype
> self
> > > > comes
> > > > > to
> > > > > > me from the past and not the future? Can we really call this
> > > > development?
> > > > > > Isn't it really a form of pathogenesis?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > David Kellogg
> > > > > > Macquarie University
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 6:29 AM, molly shea <mvshea@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dear Zaza and Mike,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My apologies for entering the conversation on Kukiya-kiya late,
> > > > > however,
> > > > > > > the article was so compelling I feel I should still enter.
> First,
> > > to
> > > > > > Zaza,
> > > > > > > thank you for writing such a forceful analysis of learning
> > through
> > > > > > > prototyping. I especially like the ways in which your
> analytical
> > > lens
> > > > > > > included the political dimensions of problem solving and
> invoking
> > > > > > > expertise. There are two ideas within the article that I hope
> to
> > > use
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > extend in my work as well, and a question for Zaza, Mike, and
> > > others
> > > > at
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > end of my second musing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The first is your discussion of disinheritance as *an attention
> > to
> > > > > > > materials—a way of looking at materials that allows the
> beholder
> > to
> > > > > > > recognize transience, mutability, intermediateness—that allows
> > > > > > Zimbabweans
> > > > > > > to employ novel and unexpected ways to act within and around
> the
> > > > > > > constraints of their material conditions.* By pointing out the
> > > > separate
> > > > > > > cognitive practice associated with seeing through
> disinheritance,
> > > the
> > > > > > > analysis draws attention to the political dimension of
> learning.
> > > The
> > > > > > > possible activities and therefore learning opportunities that
> > arise
> > > > > > through
> > > > > > > this historical perception change and assumptions about
> designing
> > > > > > learning
> > > > > > > environments then shifts with these methods of seeing and using
> > > > > > materials.
> > > > > > > It also draws another potential distinction between the Maker
> > > > Movement
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > Kukiya—kiya. The Makers Movement doesn’t necessarily claim a
> > > > political
> > > > > > > agenda, however, by claiming something a-political or claiming
> an
> > > > > agenda
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > advancing technological skills in the name of progress, it has
> a
> > > > > > historical
> > > > > > > and political situated set of values that may be in opposition
> to
> > > > those
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > Kukiya—kiya that suffer the consequences of material
> > disinheritance
> > > > > > arising
> > > > > > > in the context of economic crisis. Vossoughi, Hooper, and
> Escudé
> > > > (2016)
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > a wonderful job of pointing out many of the neoliberal
> > consequences
> > > > of
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > maker movement that does not see the lineage of prototyping
> > > expertise
> > > > > > > coming from many low-income communities living in “tight
> > > > > circumstances”.
> > > > > > > The power of the design of this prototyping project, for me,
> > comes
> > > > from
> > > > > > > centering local expertise in the design of the learning
> > > environment.
> > > > > > > Although prototyping is at the center of both “making” and
> > > > > “kukiya—kiya”
> > > > > > > practices, it seems the political sense making between settings
> > > > > couldn’t
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > more different. Even within the Zaza paper, the participants
> > > question
> > > > > how
> > > > > > > invention might or might not lead to liberation. I appreciate
> > > Zaza's
> > > > > > > attention to how participants questioned invention and business
> > > > acumen
> > > > > > as a
> > > > > > > means to “extricate Zimbabwe from its economic quandary”. A
> > lesser
> > > > > > > researcher may have ignored this comment as outside of the
> design
> > > > > process
> > > > > > > and therefore the data set to be analyzed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The second idea, related to the political dimensions of
> cognition
> > > > that
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > often overlooked, is your analysis of gender and expertise in
> the
> > > > > design
> > > > > > > process. I am struck by how the performance of gender and
> > > > > > design-expertise
> > > > > > > came in the form of whispers and informal conversations about
> > > > > hand-bags.
> > > > > > It
> > > > > > > would be great to have more analysis like this one where gender
> > > > > networks
> > > > > > > inform design. In fact, it seems gender (man/woman/trans/other)
> > is
> > > > > always
> > > > > > > informing design, but perhaps performance of expertise that is
> > > > cis-male
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > sometimes confused with having expertise at all. You analysis
> > > offers
> > > > > more
> > > > > > > nuance about other kinds of performance of expertise. I wonder
> if
> > > > > > > discussions about hand-bags creates the intimacy necessary to
> > share
> > > > > > > female-cis gendered understandings of design problems. I would
> > love
> > > > to
> > > > > > hear
> > > > > > > your thinking on this matter.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Again, thank you for your work and for the insights that this
> > > article
> > > > > has
> > > > > > > provided me.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Molly Shea
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 5:46 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ​Since it appears that people have completed discussion of
> > Zaza's
> > > > > paper
> > > > > > > > (and of course, anyone is free to add to the discussion at
> any
> > > > > time), I
> > > > > > > > feel freer to engage the microgenesis/ontogenesis
> relationship.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I know too little about L1/L2 discussions to contribute
> there,
> > > but
> > > > as
> > > > > > > life
> > > > > > > > allows I will try to suggest that microgenesis can be shown,
> in
> > > at
> > > > > > least
> > > > > > > > some circumstances, to involve both learning and development.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So I attach an example from the work of Vivian Paley. It
> > > addresses
> > > > (I
> > > > > > > > believe) Vygotsky's idea that play creates a Zoped in which a
> > > child
> > > > > is
> > > > > > "a
> > > > > > > > head taller than herself."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Perhaps the example is inappropriate to the discussion or my
> > > > > > > interpretation
> > > > > > > > of it is bonkers. To me it illustrates both LSV's claim about
> > the
> > > > > zoped
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > play and is a case of microgenesis with ontogenetic
> > implications.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > See what you think. its 4 pages long.
> > > > > > > > mike
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 5:33 PM, David Kellogg <
> > > > dkellogg60@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Arturo:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks for the very thoughtful reply. I think the only
> word I
> > > > might
> > > > > > > > > possibly disagree with is "unfortunately". I suppose there
> > may
> > > > also
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > "zone of proximal learning", just as there is a zone of
> > > proximal
> > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > > > (I suspect, given the mass extinctions which are going on
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > Anthropocene, that we are in one of these at present), and
> a
> > > zone
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > proximal social progress (these have turned out to be far
> > > longer
> > > > > > than I
> > > > > > > > > ever thought as a young person). But I think for now it's a
> > > very
> > > > > good
> > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > to focus on the D in ZPD, and not to forget that it's for
> > > > > > "development"
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > not for learning.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Let me give three reasons. First of all, if we are
> interested
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > word value looks like when we remove the sound that
> realizes
> > > it,
> > > > we
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > necessarily interested in a psychological rather than an
> > > > > > interpersonal
> > > > > > > > > phenomenon. Secondly, the focus on quick results in
> learning
> > > very
> > > > > > often
> > > > > > > > > ends up victimizing teachers for problems in development
> that
> > > > have
> > > > > > > > nothing
> > > > > > > > > to do with teaching methods and are really developmentally
> > > > rooted.
> > > > > > > > Thirdly,
> > > > > > > > > just as we need to understand exactly what teachers are
> doing
> > > > > before
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > about introducing interested changes, we also need to
> > > understand
> > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > Vygotsky was trying to do before we decide it is irrelevant
> > to
> > > > our
> > > > > > > > teaching
> > > > > > > > > needs.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This morning I was working on the beginning of the "Crisis
> at
> > > > > Three",
> > > > > > > > part
> > > > > > > > > of which (but not the good part) can be read in Vol. Five
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > > > Collected
> > > > > > > > > Works in English (Vol. Four in Russian):
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Во-первых, мы должны предположить, что все перемены, все
> > > события,
> > > > > > > > > совершающиеся в период этого кризиса, группируются вокруг
> > > > > какого-либо
> > > > > > > > > новообразования переходного типа. Следовательно, когда мы
> > будем
> > > > > > > > > анализировать симптомы кризиса, мы должны хотя бы
> > > > предположительно
> > > > > > > > ответить
> > > > > > > > > на вопрос, что нового возникает в указанное время и какова
> > > судьба
> > > > > > > > > новообразования, которое исчезает после него. Затем мы
> должны
> > > > > > > > рассмотреть,
> > > > > > > > > какая смена центральных и побочных линий развития здесь
> > > > > происходит. И
> > > > > > > > > наконец, оценить критический возраст с точки зрения зоны
> его
> > > > > > ближайшего
> > > > > > > > > развития, т. е. отношения к следующему возрасту.
> > > > > > > > > "Firstly, we must presume that all of the transformations,
> > all
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > happenings, that take place during the period of the crisis
> > may
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > grouped
> > > > > > > > > around some sort of neoformation of the transitional type.
> > > > > > > Consequently,
> > > > > > > > > when we analyse the symptoms of the crisis, we must at the
> > very
> > > > > least
> > > > > > > > > presume to answer the question of what newness emerges at
> > this
> > > > > > > appointed
> > > > > > > > > time and what the fate of these neoformations which
> disappear
> > > > > > > afterwards
> > > > > > > > > might be. Next, we should consider how the central and
> > > peripheral
> > > > > > lines
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > development here will unfold. And lastly, we ought to
> > evaluate
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > > > age from the point of view of the zone of its proximal
> > > > development,
> > > > > > > i.e.
> > > > > > > > > its relationship to the subsequent age."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "The zone of its proximal development" is its relationship
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > subsequent age! Almost by definition, if you present some
> > > > > > > > > pedagogical intervention and it immediately becomes part of
> > the
> > > > > > child's
> > > > > > > > > psychological system, you are looking at the zone of actual
> > > > > > > development,
> > > > > > > > > and not the zone of proximal development at all.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Years ago, I told Mike that I kept mixing up microgenesis
> and
> > > > > > learning.
> > > > > > > > He
> > > > > > > > > told me "Don't do that!" but he didn't exactly spell out
> how
> > to
> > > > > avoid
> > > > > > > it:
> > > > > > > > > instead, he arranged for me to review a book on
> > > > Ganzheitpsychologie
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > left me more confused than ever. So I think that's still
> what
> > > we
> > > > > need
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > now: but one way to start is simply to kick learning out of
> > the
> > > > > ZPD.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > David Kellogg
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Macquarie University
> > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 1:44 AM, Arturo Escandon <
> > > > > > > > > arturo.escandon@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thank you for this David.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I agree with what you are saying at many levels.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, the kind of assessment I introduced did
> not
> > > have
> > > > > > > > > > significant learning components. So the evaluation part
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > assessment is not giving me much data about microgenesis
> > but
> > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > ontogenesis. The "outcome" is not the result of the
> > learning
> > > > > > > component
> > > > > > > > > > for sure.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My bet is that the links between L1 and L2 (which allow
> > > > students
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > beyond sound perception of words) are possible because of
> > > > > > development
> > > > > > > > > > in high school. More to do with L1 development. Again,
> the
> > > kind
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > interventions I am allowed to make in the classroom are
> > very
> > > > > narrow
> > > > > > > > > > and the structure and shape of the study programme
> prevents
> > > me
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > doing large longitudinal studies.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I agree the notion of DA as it is used in the SLA
> > literature
> > > > > > presents
> > > > > > > > > > many problems.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Arturo
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 11 October 2016 at 05:17, David Kellogg <
> > > > dkellogg60@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Arturo:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dynamic assessment is a really good example of what I'm
> > > > talking
> > > > > > > > about.
> > > > > > > > > > > Dynamic assessment is supposedly based on the ZPD. But
> I
> > > > think
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > three linked ways in which it is actually based on a
> > > > distortion
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > ZPD.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > a) Dynamic assessment looks at microgenesis, not
> > > > ontogenesis. I
> > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > idea was originally that the microgenetic perturbations
> > > that
> > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > picked
> > > > > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > > > in DA were, actually, predictive of the "next zone of
> > > > > > development".
> > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > there are two reasons why this has not happened.
> Firstly,
> > > > there
> > > > > > > > hasn't
> > > > > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > > a clear demarcation between learning and development,
> and
> > > the
> > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > > that what the child can do today with assistance will
> be
> > > done
> > > > > by
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > child
> > > > > > > > > > > independently tomorrow--literally, in twenty-four
> > hours--is
> > > > > just
> > > > > > > too
> > > > > > > > > > > attractive to people like Matt Poehner and Jim Lantolf.
> > > > > Secondly,
> > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > hasn't been a clear scheme for figuring out what the
> next
> > > > zone
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > development really is (it's there in Vygotsky's
> > pedological
> > > > > > > lectures,
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > these haven't been translated yet).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > b) Dynamic assessment is "dynamic" and not diagnostic.
> > It's
> > > > > > > > interesting
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > compare the two Russian versions of Vygotsky's
> > pedological
> > > > > > > lectures:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > https://www.marxists.org/russkij/vygotsky/pedologia/
> > > > > > > > > > lektsii-po-pedologii.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > https://www.marxists.org/russkij/vygotsky/cw/pdf/vol4.
> > pdf
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Compare 2001: 191 with 1984: 260 (and also the English
> > > > version,
> > > > > > > 1998:
> > > > > > > > > > > 199!). It's not just that the Russian editors insist on
> > > > > replacing
> > > > > > > > > "test"
> > > > > > > > > > > with "task"--it's that they consistently replace
> > > "diagnostic"
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic", even where this leads to redundant headings
> > and
> > > > > total
> > > > > > > > > > nonsense.
> > > > > > > > > > > Why? Well, because in the Soviet scheme of things, the
> > ZPD
> > > is
> > > > > NOT
> > > > > > > > > > > diagnostic: it's dynamic. That means that a personality
> > is
> > > > > > > infinitely
> > > > > > > > > > > malleable and tomorrow's development, with the right
> kind
> > > of
> > > > > > > > mediation,
> > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > become today's. This is something that DA has largely
> > > adopted
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > > > Soviet roots....but it's not Vygotsky.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > c) As a result DA has to reject the core of Vygotsky's
> > > > method:
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > Vygotsky, structure is to be explained by function, but
> > > > > function
> > > > > > > MUST
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > explained by history, by development. Suppose I have
> two
> > > > > > children.
> > > > > > > > One
> > > > > > > > > > > learns, the other doesn't. The structural explanation
> is
> > > > simply
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > first one has the right mental structures to learn and
> > the
> > > > > second
> > > > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > > > not.
> > > > > > > > > > > The functional explanation is that the first has the
> > right
> > > > > > > functional
> > > > > > > > > > > motivation (putative career, middle class aspirations,
> > etc)
> > > > > while
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > does not. But the sad truth is that the vast majority
> of
> > > > > learning
> > > > > > > > > > > difficulties really are developmental. I don't think
> that
> > > > means
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > are destiny. But I do think it means that prevention
> is a
> > > > whole
> > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > easier
> > > > > > > > > > > than cure. In DA, development is Markovian: the present
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > future
> > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > linked causally--but not the past and the present:
> it's a
> > > > weird
> > > > > > > > > inversion
> > > > > > > > > > > of Aristotle's belief that the past was determined but
> > the
> > > > > future
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > intrinsically non-determinable.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > David Kellogg
> > > > > > > > > > > Macquarie University
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Arturo Escandon <
> > > > > > > > > > arturo.escandon@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> David,
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> In my research about dynamic assessment I have been
> able
> > > to
> > > > > > spot a
> > > > > > > > > > >> moment students reorganise L1 and L2 concepts (related
> > to
> > > > > > > urbanistic
> > > > > > > > > > >> and architectural city features) in such a way that
> they
> > > no
> > > > > > longer
> > > > > > > > > > >> "perceive" the sounds of words. Students who do not
> > arrive
> > > > to
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > >> reorganisation are not able to escape from the
> > perceptual
> > > > > > > challenge
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> oral utterances.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> The first group of students tend to mediate their
> > > linguistic
> > > > > > > > > > >> production either in ideograms or Spanish-alphabet
> > written
> > > > > words
> > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > >> asked to take notes. The second group tend to use the
> > > > Japanese
> > > > > > > > > > >> syllabic system to transliterate sounds.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Best
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Arturo Escandón
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> On 9 October 2016 at 07:21, David Kellogg <
> > > > > dkellogg60@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > When I read materials on Vygotsky, particularly in
> > > applied
> > > > > > > > > > linguistics or
> > > > > > > > > > >> > TESOL, I always get the "four timescales"
> > (phylogenetic,
> > > > > > > > > sociogenetic,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > ontogenetic, and microgenetic) from Mescharyakov's
> > > > wonderful
> > > > > > > > article
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Vygotsky's terminology. At first, in the vain hope
> > that
> > > it
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > distinguish better between ontogenetic development
> and
> > > > > > > > microgenetic
> > > > > > > > > > >> > learning, I used this myself (see Song and Kellogg
> > > 2011).
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Now I think that was a mistake. The term
> > "microgenesis"
> > > > was
> > > > > > > around
> > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Vygotsky was alive and he certainly knew about it:
> > it's
> > > a
> > > > > > > constant
> > > > > > > > > > >> feature
> > > > > > > > > > >> > of Gestaltist studies of perception. It's also
> > strongly
> > > > > > > associated
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Nazi psychology of Leipzig. Vygotsky knows about the
> > > term
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > >> > it, and I think he's got good reasons.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Even where LSV agrees with the Gestaltists (Kohler,
> > > > Koffka,
> > > > > > > Lewin,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Wertheimer, Selz--they weren't all Nazis!) he
> doesn't
> > > seem
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> term
> > > > > > > > > > >> > microgenesis. And actually, he's quite interested in
> > > Nazi
> > > > > > > > psychology
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> > not afraid to quote it, although he bitterly,
> > > scathingly,
> > > > > > > > denounces
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Jaensch, Krueger, Ach, Kroh and others in "Fascism
> in
> > > > > > > > > > Psychoneurology". I
> > > > > > > > > > >> > think he doesn't use "microgenesis" because it
> > conflates
> > > > > > > external
> > > > > > > > > > >> > perception with perceiving meaning.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Halliday, who also uses "phylogenetic" and
> > > "ontogenetic",
> > > > > > calls
> > > > > > > > his
> > > > > > > > > > >> "micro"
> > > > > > > > > > >> > scale logogenesis: the creation of semantics (as
> > opposed
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > biological,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > social, or psychological semiosis). Take Zaza's
> > article.
> > > > At
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > >> > point, the participants become uninterested in
> > > perceptual
> > > > > high
> > > > > > > > > > fidelity
> > > > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > > > >> > much more interested in meaning--what will Gogo
> think
> > if
> > > > she
> > > > > > > sees
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > >> her
> > > > > > > > > > >> > daughter-in-law is using mechanical means for
> nursing?
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Of course, semantic meaning is always linked to
> > > perceptual
> > > > > > > > meaning.
> > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > >> > "linked" never means equal or mutual or fully
> > > reciprocal:
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > > >> > weight is first on one side and then on the other.
> > > > > > Microgenesis
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > >> you
> > > > > > > > > > >> > get in eye tests, and logogenesis is what you get
> when
> > > you
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > reading
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Zaza's article (and when you are reading this post).
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > David Kellogg
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Macquarie University
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an
> > object
> > > that creates history. Ernst Boesch
> > >
> >
>