[Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion

[James Ma]

David's point that consciousness is the meaning of meaning suits me well
and I'd like to extend a bit, referring to social science research in
general as well as neoformation in materialist dialectics.



I see consciousness as a nexus through which mental activity takes place,
i.e. it is where mental content is enlivened (animated) or more to the
point "semiotised" in that it is predominantly made up of signs (or
"psychic images" as Jung would say) and their likeness. This brings into
focus the relationship between signs and their likeness - such relationship
manifests itself as the meaning of meaning that is ever intentional
(wilful), interpretative (hence subjective) and situational (tied to given
social, cultural and historical contexts).



Premised on this, in social science research, the researcher's
self-function as instrument for research is arguably to be first and
foremost recognised. The profundity of ethics is thus concerned with people
and knowledge. Here, "people" refers to not only those you are studying but
also those who are conducting the study; "knowledge" contains the notion
that by doing research you make a claim to knowledge in terms of how you
see what you see and why. The very purpose of social science research is
thus not to offer a definitive answer to a big question but rather to
induct other people into your way of thinking and knowing. In this sense,
social science research is by nature subjective, self-evident and
insusceptible of final conclusions - to which the *ad infinitum* of
Peircean semiosis applies.



Regarding neoformation, the transformation of quantity into quality occurs
when the meaning of meaning undergoes reconstitution or reconstruction
within the individual, as in the case of Leandro in Roth's article.
Importantly, internal contradictions within an individual precipitate
neoformation as a qualitative change, that is, instead of knowing, he is
reconstituting or reconstructing the meaning of meaning instead of knowing
it.



James


On 13 December 2017 at 11:08, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:

> Alfredo:
>
> Actually, I think there are three threads we can twist together.
>
> a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major issues that divided Vygotsky
> from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. Isaac Spielrein). Vygotsky
> was consistent: the child is not a short adult, and the adult is not a
> senile child, so child development cannot be seen as a kind of dress
> rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult development be seen as
> continuing child development by other means: there is a qualitative
> difference between the adolescent and the young adult that does not exist
> even between the schoolchild and the adolescent.
>
> b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should he even have tried? This
> is one of the issues that divides Sasha from Wolff-Michael, and also
> divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes that without rising to the
> concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method at all. To me that
> necessarily means making the concept of neoformation more specific and more
> age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it much more general and
> consequently abstract.
>
> c)  What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) and what would it mean for
> it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has set a cat amongst the
> pigeons by defining consciousness itself as "perizhivanie of
> perizhivanie".  On the one hand, this seems to suggest that consciousness
> is an afterthought, and that children cannot have any consciousness at all;
> it also seems (to me) to imply that consciousness is essentially
> individual, the product of reflection upon reflections (and there is a
> similar argument being made, rather sloppily, by Michael Luntley in the
> current Educational Philosophical and Theory...
>
> Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, Educational Philosophy and Theory,
> 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341
>
> And yet there are two things about Wolff-Michael's formula that do appeal
> to me:
>
> 1. The idea that dialectical development is essentially differentiation and
> not replacement of one form by another. If consciousness is essentially
> perizhivanie turned back on itself (like language turned back on itself) it
> is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it.
>
> 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of meaning". Of course,
> that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I get when I turn it back
> on itself....
>
>
> David Kellogg
>
> Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric,
> Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on “Neoformation: A
> Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change”'
>
> Free e-print available (for a short time only) at
>
> http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> wrote:
>
> > Just a reminder that the article for discussion on neoformation is now
> > open access at the MCA T&F pages.
> > http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2016.1179327
> >
> > There recently were questions in this list concerning adult development.
> > There was then no mention to this article, which I think was already
> > published, but it turns out that it discusses a developmental turn-over
> in
> > the professional and everyday life of an adult teacher, using and
> > discussing the concept of neoformation and the associated law of
> transition
> > of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced the concept in writings
> about
> > child development, and so I assume there may be issues or challenges
> > specific to the extension of these notions beyond child development. I
> > wonder what others in this list and outside it think, how and whether
> those
> > interested in adult development find the contributions present in the
> > article relevant/appealing/problematic...
> >
> > Alfredo
> > ________________________________________
> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> > Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article
> > for    discussion
> >
> > Steemed xmca'ers,
> >
> >
> > the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected
> article
> > from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by Wolff-Michael
> > Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?".
> >
> >
> > The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a brief
> > time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian notion
> > that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common in
> the
> > literature, despite having quite a methodological import in Vygotsky's
> > writings.
> >
> >
> > I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and critiques to
> > Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article brings
> > with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open access
> right
> > now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat!
> >
> >
> > The whole issue is published here:
> >
> > http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList
> >
> >
> > Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming days,
> and
> > I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy
> bringing
> > in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we have
> for
> > digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live on in
> > current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature.
> >
> >
> > Alfredo
> >
> >
>


<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>