[Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion
Andy Blunden
ablunden@mira.net
Fri Dec 15 16:55:07 PST 2017
Huw, I think it is actually problematic to try to draw a
line between "systems observed" and "systems of
observation," though the intention in doing this is clear
enough. I prefer to use expressions like: "what basis does
the concept have in objective reality?" That basis may turn
out to be a firm basis or a very thin basis. How we evaluate
the basis a concept has in reality is by reflection on
/practice/, of course, and it is in practice that a system
of observation and an external system merge - objective
practice.
I have tried to popularise a wider range of "dialectical
processes" by means of a critique of conceptions of
"non-linear processes" largely gleaned from what people have
said about "dialectical processes" and "non-linear
processes" on XMCA.
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Non-linear%20processes%20and%20the%20dialectic.pdf
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 16/12/2017 11:03 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote:
> Regarding analog structures in relation to quality and
> quantity I can perhaps offer the following without knowing
> where this lands specifically to the paper(s), as I've yet
> to read them (on my list).
>
> Briefly, it is useful to take note of two forms of system
> at play. The first are the systems observed (behaviours
> and structures of water, or behaviours and structures part
> of organic life), the second is the system of observation.
> The transferability of quality and quantity across systems
> applies to the system of observation. In both cases the
> quality of the system is of interest. Specifically, this
> quality is concerned with how the system is organised. The
> point about quantity is simply in recognition that when
> quantities accrue, there are tipping points into different
> organisations as a function of systemically recognised
> properties.
>
> I think it is particularly worthwhile for researchers who
> are predominantly focused on text, language or speech to
> attend closely to these points. Because, this, as I see
> it, is the source of what is meant by quality -- a
> definition perhaps hard to extract from a course on
> qualitative research (because it requires a careful study
> of systems).
>
> I am also a little curious about how the discussion has
> been initiated, seemingly primed with a focus on set
> critiques rather than starting with W-M's paper itself.
> David's contributions have frequently served as an
> effective foil in numerous discussions, but then I think
> it would be beneficial to encourage a certain quality of
> discussion rather than curtailing it to the critiques,
> unless that is what is explicitly intended?
>
> Best,
> Huw
>
> On 15 December 2017 at 23:01, Andy Blunden
> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
> I heartily agree with the drift of this message,
> David. "The
> law of transformation of quantity into quality" is the
> barest, most abstract description of processes, which
> unlike
> any "law" I know, tells us absolutely nothing about any
> actual process of development. Describing the melting
> of ice
> into a liquid in this way, gives no hint as to what
> temperature and pressure this happens or how, far less any
> insight which is transportable to any other phenomenon.
>
> Engels formulated the famous "Three Laws of Dialectics" in
> the 1880s at a time when a mass movement of the lowest
> ranks
> of the proletariat was moving towards socialism under the
> leadership of a layer of self-educated artisans, and these
> ideas were intended as tools for these leaders to use in
> their intellectual battles with the bourgeois
> establishment.
> The idea that these should re-appear in 21st century
> scientific journals I find absurd,
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden
> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> <http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
> On 16/12/2017 9:39 AM, David Kellogg wrote:
> > Wolff-Michael, Haydi--
> >
> > Doesn't it seem a little strange to you that we are
> discussing the
> > "transformation of quality into quantity" as if
> there were no qualitative
> > difference between the transformation of ice into
> water and the
> > "transformation" of a human embryo into a neonate,
> or a child into an
> > adult, or an adult into a stinking corpse?
> >
> > Of course, it is possible to pretend they the same.
> It might even sometimes
> > be useful. For example, it is sometimes useful to
> say to children that
> > "dinosaurs learned to fly" in order to explain how
> one branch of the
> > dinosaurs, the birds, survived to the present day.
> Linguists sometimes talk
> > about "rules" of grammar as if they were "laws" of
> society and Newton spoke
> > of "laws" of gravity. The other day I taught a
> little game where rabbits
> > "eat" grass, grass "eat" soil, and soil "eats" dead
> rabbits. But let's not
> > forget how different these phenomena are; it's like
> an actor forgetting
> > that she or he is in character, and an audience
> forgetting that a play
> > is done for pay.
> >
> > Embryos grow without developing: that is, they
> increase in quantitative
> > mass without any qualitative change in response to
> the historico-cultural
> > environment; that was why Vygotsky excluded them
> from his pedology. Adults
> > develop without growing; that is, they change
> behavioral forms without any
> > quantitative change in their mass; that was why
> Vygotsky excused adults
> > from his pedology. Children do both at one and the
> same time; indeed, the
> > two processes are inextricably interlinked, and
> that's why Vygotsky devoted
> > the bulk of his oeuvre to studying this complex
> dynamic unity.
> >
> > Isn't the first step in understanding it to
> understand that it is
> > a "transformation of quantity into quality" of a
> very different quality?
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> <http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full>
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
> > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com
> <mailto:wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >> Haydi, in your last message, you are separating the
> subject and the object
> >> (THING). What is important is that the relation
> changes, and the question
> >> is whether there is a qualitative (rather than
> quantitative, continuous)
> >> change, that is, whether a qualitatively new form
> has arisen. Michael
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
> >>
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> --------------------
> >> Applied Cognitive Science
> >> MacLaurin Building A567
> >> University of Victoria
> >> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
> >> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth
> <http://web.uvic.ca/%7Emroth>
> <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/
> <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>>
> >>
> >> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
> >>
> <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
> <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new->
> >> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-
> >> mathematics-of-mathematics/>*
> >>
> >>
> >> Excuse me , Michael! I just wanted to add , I hope
> you confirm , that if we
> >> change our lens each time , it does not mean the
> THING has changed. The
> >> thing remains the same as relative stability other
> than in the process of
> >> DEVELOPMENT which is the point you've focused on.
> Thanks!
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:42 AM,
> <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com
> <mailto:haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Michael
> >>>
> >>> Thanks with briefing. And just within the limits
> of talking the talk
> >> which
> >>> however needs , as you say , mastery , :-)
> ignoring the facts that the
> >>> surgeon cures the patient while he does not suffer
> the disease and that
> >> the
> >>> coach trains the champions while he is not able to
> do a passing shot and
> >>> that this might lead us to the discovery of some
> hidden relation , you ,
> >>> however , DISTINGUISH between the two. Then you
> stress that trainers ARE
> >>> NOT players vice versa and you're bewaring
> yourself of not taking the
> >> talk
> >>> instead of walk. Great and emancipatory caution
> :-) Then we again find
> >>> ourselves at the same point.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks you give me examples to simplify the
> riddle. And this parallels my
> >>> want of learning from you really not complimentarily.
> >>>
> >>> Water is not ice ; ice is not steam. But we take
> the contradictory
> >>> ontological aspect of the three phenomena and put
> them on a continuum ,
> >>> process , movement and delve into it so that we
> reach H2O as their origin
> >>> and temperature as the solvent of the riddle , the
> cause of the leaps and
> >>> neoformations.
> >>>
> >>> Neoformations as you positively believe are
> differing qualities which
> >> must
> >>> have their due corresponding causes. You give us
> 'the Measure' as the
> >>> yardstick and we must try to learn about it.
> >>>
> >>> That said , we return to what triggered me to take
> your time:
> >>>
> >>> [I cannot see the sort of differences some
> discourses in our community
> >>> make between dialectics, that of Marx, and dialogism.]
> >>>
> >>> and:
> >>>
> >>> [The word, in dialogue, is several things at once
> (pace Bakhtin and
> >>> Voloshinov, Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...)]
> >>>
> >>> I'm thinking if these several things are also
> distinctive. And if they
> >> are
> >>> , should not they require their due corresponding
> causes? Do not they
> >>> require , in turn , to be put on the said
> continuum so that each
> >>> realization could be traced back to its root
> theoretically be cognized?
> >>> Something other than this must be known to you
> especially cause 'at once'
> >>> might disturb even the idea of unity in diversity.
> >>>
> >>> Haydi
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>> *From:* Wolff-Michael Roth
> <wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com
> <mailto:wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com>>
> >>> *To:* Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com
> <mailto:haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>>
> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, 14 December 2017, 21:43:05
> >>> *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and
> developmental change: Issue
> >>> 4 article for discussion
> >>>
> >>> Haydi,
> >>>
> >>> Bourdieu (*Le sens pratique*) distinguishes
> practical mastery and
> >>> symbolic mastery. Take this example. There are a
> lot of people (e.g.
> >> sports
> >>> journalists, surgeons) talking about something
> that they do not know
> >>> themselves (e.g. athletes, your cancer). They
> symbolically master the
> >>> something, but they do not really "know" what they
> are talking about,
> >> that
> >>> is, they have not lived (through) it, have not
> been affected in that way,
> >>> have never been able to play a pass, do a passing
> shot, or feel the
> >> cancer
> >>> in and with their bodies in the way that those
> affected do.
> >>>
> >>> I am not saying what people should or should not
> do. But I am beware of
> >>> those who talk the talk while incapable of walking
> the walk. :-)
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> Michael
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
> >>>
> >>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> --------------------
> >>> Applied Cognitive Science
> >>> MacLaurin Building A567
> >>> University of Victoria
> >>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
> >>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth
> <http://web.uvic.ca/%7Emroth>
> <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/
> <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>>
> >>>
> >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
> >>>
> <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
> <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new->
> >> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-
> >> mathematics-of-mathematics/>*
> >>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 4:45 AM,
> <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com
> <mailto:haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Thanks Michael! Thought-provoking ... I feel many
> reflecting angles in
> >> the
> >>> direction of unity/identity not our
> presuppositions before ... taking me
> >> to
> >>> reading 'Toward A Philosophy of the Act' and other
> sources you introduce
> >>> though I had planned to read Negri's Marx beyond
> Marx assumed more
> >> related
> >>> to Grundrisse rather than 'The Savage Anomaly'.
> Just I wonder how Ilyenko
> >>> (whom you praise) could resolve his repeatedly
> conflictual issue of
> >>> word/verbiage#goal-oriented activity with such a
> firm idea that "The
> >>> word, in dialogue, is several things at once (pace
> Bakhtin and
> >> Voloshinov,
> >>> Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...). Doesn't he
> discredit 'verbiage'
> >>> including Learners' (Teaching Learners How to
> Think) as against the
> >> varying
> >>> contents (arising from activities) which demand
> covering , being
> >>> realized/crystalized/embodied in shells we call
> words in dialogues ,
> >>> discourses , communication. I guess that Ilyenko's
> 'how to think'
> >> contrasts
> >>> with 'knowledge in words' as he believes that
> verbalizing is not
> >>> necessarily conceptualizing (ascension from the
> abstract to the concrete)
> >>> and here I think some people take him as believing
> to think=to act as
> >>> connecting him to Spinoza's attributes in one
> substance whereas he
> >>> attributes the coming into existence of thought to
> a thinking person ,
> >> that
> >>> is , man.
> >>>
> >>> Admittedly Marx must not accept Hegel's 'being
> contains not-being' as
> >>> moving without stops/stability/existences. That
> goes also with your
> >>> discussion with David as referring to the periods
> of crises and
> >> stabilities
> >>> aside from other differences applying it to adults
> and other phenomena ,
> >>> that is , the universality of the concept , which
> should thus be. Crises
> >>> COME to give birth to Neoformations as existences
> not as momentarily
> >>> dissipating phenomena (your comment on five
> phases). Mikhailov in that
> >>> quote also puts aside the coming and going
> (reality/ideality) creates
> >>> another quasi-material base as communication
> (addressivity) which in this
> >>> form negates Monism. I'd like to review your good
> paragraph:
> >>>
> >>> [I am surprised by bullet (c), which attributes
> something to me (my
> >>> phantasy?). I am particularly surprised that
> David, who knows his
> >> Vygotsky
> >>> so intimately, would subscribe to that idea. It
> was Vygotsky who defined
> >>> consciousness in this way: "Consciousness is the
> experience of
> >> experiences
> >>> just like experiences are simply experiences of
> objects" (Vygotsky, 1997
> >>> [vol 4], p. 71–72)----in Russian: "Сознание есть
> переживание переживаний,
> >>> точно таким же образом, как переживания просто
> суть переживания
> >> предметов"
> >>> (Vygotskij, 1982 [vol 1], p. 89). In the same
> text, Vygotsky refers to
> >> Marx
> >>> and the doubling of experience in human labor.
> Marx (in the *German
> >>> Ideology*) writes that his conception of history
> **"does not explain
> >> praxis
> >>> based on the idea, [but] explains the formation of
> ideas out of material
> >>> praxis"** (1978 [German], p. 38). **Consciousness
> follows and arises from
> >>> praxis, it does not precede praxis.** (see also L.
> Suchman's work on the
> >>> relation between [abstract] plans and situated
> action, and H. Garfinkel
> >> on
> >>> what it means to know an instruction, and my own
> work on the radical
> >>> uncertainty in scientific discovery work, **where
> I show that even
> >>> scientists
> >>> having done some procedure for 30 years** **still
> find themselves
> >>> **knowing** what
> >>> they ***have done only*** [sometimes hours or
> days] after having done
> >> it).]
> >>> Then communication in words/with words should be
> based on previous deeds
> >>> if they are to represent some appropriate
> knowledge. And I don't know
> >> here
> >>> how this notion connects to the word's
> instantaneous multi-variateness.
> >>>
> >>> Marx in this Grundrisse uses the word 'posit' more
> than a hundred times
> >>> like you quote differentiating 'abstract plans and
> situated action'. He
> >>> criticizes other economists for taking the
> numerous comings and goings as
> >>> leading to the positing of the workers as
> accumulating more than they
> >> need
> >>> appropriating their due share of the surplus value
> becoming capitalists
> >>> themselves. History has rendered a halt to the
> Socialist Bloc yet workers
> >>> are in the streets for their occupation and bread.
> History might take a
> >>> hundred years or an whole epoch as a MOMENT OF
> such and such MOVEMENT but
> >>> that's theory and not actuality.
> >>>
> >>> Excuse me Michael! I just wanted to thank and
> leave but my thought
> >> ensued.
> >>> This is against my preparedness. I will follow
> your other excellent
> >>> guidances.
> >>>
> >>> Best wishes
> >>>
> >>> Haydi
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>> *From:* Wolff-Michael Roth
> <wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com
> <mailto:wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com>>
> >>> *To:* haydizulfei@rocketmail.com
> <mailto:haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>
> >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 December 2017, 22:39:05
> >>> *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and
> developmental change: Issue
> >>> 4 article for discussion
> >>>
> >>> Haydi, all:
> >>>
> >>> concerning (Hegelian) dialectics, Andy seems to be
> the specialist in our
> >>> community. I cannot see the sort of differences
> some discourses in our
> >>> community make between dialectics, that of Marx,
> and dialogism.
> >>>
> >>> Marx clearly distinguishes his method from that of
> Hegel: "In its
> >>> foundation, my dialectical method not only differs
> from Hegels but is
> >> *its
> >>> direct opposite*" (Ger & Rus chapter 23 of
> complete works, Capital, p. 27
> >>> [Ger.]). Andy tends to present a Hegelian Marx,
> whereas other scholars
> >>> exhibit a Spinozist Marx. Marx describes the
> coming and going during an
> >>> exchange process, and the unity/identity of
> use-value and
> >>> exchange-value----which exist not because of the
> different perspectives
> >> of
> >>> buyer and seller but because of the unity of the
> exchange (act). This
> >>> exchange is a movement, thus non-self-identical;
> that same
> >>> coming-and-going, Mikhailov draws upon to explain
> the very existence of
> >>> mind. And Bakhtin's dialogism (dialogical
> relation) is a movement of
> >>> coming-and-going, where coming and going do not
> exist independently,
> >> where
> >>> any boundary is itself an effect rather than the
> cause of its parts.
> >>>
> >>> Mead, too, describes emergence in this way:
> something belonging to two
> >>> orders, its nature in the subsequent order
> unpredictable from the
> >>> perspective of the first order. He writes that
> sociality is experience.
> >>> "the situation in which the novel event is in both
> the old order and the
> >>> new which its advent heralds. Sociality is *the
> capacity for being
> >>> several things at once*" (*Philosophy of the
> Present, *p. 49). The word,
> >>> in dialogue, is several things at once (pace
> Bakhtin and Voloshinov,
> >>> Vygotsky, and Feuerbach, and Marx...)
> >>>
> >>> Negri (*The Savage Anomaly*, p. 50) writes about
> the method of Spinoza:
> >>> "the method ... is dialectical. But let us not
> confuse the matter: It is
> >>> dialectical only because it rests on the
> versatility of being, on its
> >>> expansivity, on the diffusive and potent nature of
> its concept. This
> >>> method, then, is precisely the opposite of a
> dialectical method. At every
> >>> point that the wholeness of being is closed, it is
> also opened. In the
> >> case
> >>> at hand, now, here, it demands to be forced open:
> It wants a rule of
> >>> movement, a definition of the actual articulation
> or, at least, of the
> >>> possibility of articulation." That is what I see
> in the Marx I read; and
> >>> that is in the Bakhtin I read.
> >>>
> >>> Michael
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> ------------------------------
> >>> --------------------
> >>> Applied Cognitive Science
> >>> MacLaurin Building A567
> >>> University of Victoria
> >>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
> >>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth
> <http://web.uvic.ca/%7Emroth>
> <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/
> <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>>
> >>>
> >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
> >>>
> <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
> <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new->
> >> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-
> >> mathematics-of-mathematics/>*
> >>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:30 AM,
> <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com
> <mailto:haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hello Michael,
> >>>
> >>> Since Alfredo came here , new vistas have been
> opened to the
> >>> viewers/spectators. In the old days , I had you
> but with very little
> >>> understanding of what you used to say. Now I won't
> claim far greater
> >>> comprehension of what is being said and explained.
> But the fact is I feel
> >>> much closer to what comes from you that I'd rather
> call 'appealing' ,
> >>> 'revealing' 'fascinating'. I've read much of your
> articles , try to
> >>> understand your Marx or the Marx you introduce.
> I'm happy you're sharing
> >>> your ideas with us again these days. At times they
> are very brief but
> >> this
> >>> piece is much more revealing. We need to hear more
> and more from you. I
> >>> really feel we're breathing fresh air. Thank you
> so much!
> >>>
> >>> And I appreciate your replying to :
> >>>
> >>> And, we can rally Bakhtin (the one of *The
> >>> Philosophy of the Act*
> >>>
> >>> You well understand why I'm posing this question.
> Bakhtin's acceptance of
> >>> dialogics , rejection of Dialectics (I so fancy)
> or replacement of
> >>> dialectics with dialogics and 'the philosophy of
> the act'?? ACT of
> >>> communication? Activity act? Action act? One could
> very easily equalize
> >>> intercourse with communication. All depends on
> depths and essences of
> >> what
> >>> we intend to express as far as they refer to the
> actuality of the
> >> affairs.
> >>> Again you well know I've always seen
> word/dialogue/communication as
> >> arising
> >>> in the context/situation of work/labour/practical
> activity never
> >>> dislocating these latter ones. But during all
> these years all those who
> >>> opposed act also opposed Marx , ANL , etc. But now
> you base most of your
> >>> writings on Marx. I'm now almost finishing
> Grundrisse if you'd like to go
> >>> through references to that work. Thanks! By the
> way I've read these last
> >>> three articles (article,commentary,response) many
> times though the
> >> response
> >>> seemed difficult to me. I need to get exercised
> with it.
> >>>
> >>> All the best wishes
> >>>
> >>> Haydi
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>> *From:* Wolff-Michael Roth
> <wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com
> <mailto:wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com>>
> >>> *To:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 December 2017, 20:09:27
> >>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and
> developmental change: Issue 4
> >>> article for discussion
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> The first thing I note in the text David sent is
> the attribution of ideas
> >>> to people. I think about this issue differently.
> Ideas, because abstract,
> >>> are not of people. They are aspects of discourses
> of our community. We
> >>> espouse such discourses and contribute to
> developing them, but they
> >> always
> >>> belong to us and never to me---recall the last
> paragraphs of *Thinking
> >> and
> >>> Speech: *the word is a reality for two but
> impossible for one.
> >>>
> >>> So what the article I authored presents is an
> ordering of phenomena in
> >>> which *qualitatively* new forms arise. The
> description of the emergence
> >> of
> >>> *qualitatively* new forms is the very core of
> Thom's *catastrophe
> >> theory*.
> >>> This theory provides us with a way of classifying
> particular
> >>> phenomena---and in this way, it is as concrete an
> endeavor as any other
> >>> tied to our communal activities. Thus, unlike what
> the paragraph in
> >> bullet
> >>> (b) states, the published text is not about pure
> abstraction. It is
> >> about a
> >>> way of including Vygotsky's neoformation among
> other phenomena of
> >>> neoformations. Moreover , the article provides a
> way in which authors,
> >>> *concretely*, arrive at satisfying certain
> requirements for phenomena to
> >> be
> >>> developmental rather than merely incremental. In
> this way, the article
> >>> satisfies what bullet (a) states. It provides for
> the methodological
> >> steps
> >>> to be taken to be able to ascertain such
> phenomena. I cannot see any
> >>> attempts being made in the text to assimilate
> adult forms of development
> >> to
> >>> infant and child development. Instead, it makes
> all of these forms
> >>> empirical issues. How do you show that there is a
> change to a
> >> qualitatively
> >>> new form? This is the question the article answers.
> >>>
> >>> I am surprised by bullet (c), which attributes
> something to me (my
> >>> phantasy?). I am particularly surprised that
> David, who knows his
> >> Vygotsky
> >>> so intimately, would subscribe to that idea. It
> was Vygotsky who defined
> >>> consciousness in this way: "Consciousness is the
> experience of
> >> experiences
> >>> just like experiences are simply experiences of
> objects" (Vygotsky, 1997
> >>> [vol 4], p. 71–72)----in Russian: "Сознание есть
> переживание переживаний,
> >>> точно таким же образом, как переживания просто
> суть переживания
> >> предметов"
> >>> (Vygotskij, 1982 [vol 1], p. 89). In the same
> text, Vygotsky refers to
> >> Marx
> >>> and the doubling of experience in human labor.
> Marx (in the *German
> >>> Ideology*) writes that his conception of history
> "does not explain praxis
> >>> based on the idea, [but] explains the formation of
> ideas out of material
> >>> praxis" (1978 [German], p. 38). Consciousness
> follows and arises from
> >>> praxis, it does not precede praxis. (see also L.
> Suchman's work on the
> >>> relation between [abstract] plans and situated
> action, and H. Garfinkel
> >> on
> >>> what it means to know an instruction, and my own
> work on the radical
> >>> uncertainty in scientific discovery work, where I
> show that even
> >> scientists
> >>> having done some procedure for 30 years still find
> themselves knowing
> >> what
> >>> they have done only [sometimes hours or days]
> after having done it).
> >>>
> >>> That point Vygotsky makes about consciousness is
> the same that we find in
> >>> Marx, when he writes that consciousness
> [Bewußtsein] cannot ever be
> >>> anything else than conscious [bewußtes] being
> [Sein] (in *German
> >>> Ideology*).
> >>> In the same vein, Heidegger distinguishes Being
> [Sein] from beings
> >>> [Seiendes]; and G.H. Mead does a similar move when
> he shows that
> >>> consciousness is the presence of the distant
> object only attained in the
> >>> future. I could continue the list with a series of
> French philosophers,
> >>> developing these ideas further. And, we can rally
> Bakhtin (the one of
> >> *The
> >>> Philosophy of the Act*) and Mead (*The Philosophy
> of the Act* [he,
> >>> too] and *The
> >>> Philosophy of the Present*).
> >>>
> >>> I would never claim that consciousness is
> individual---the word itself
> >>> implies that consciousness is knowing [Lat.
> *scīre*] together [Lat.
> >>> *co[n,m]-*]. It would not be smart claiming it to
> be individual, given
> >> the
> >>> long history of scholars showing us why it has to
> be otherwise: Marx,
> >>> Il'enkov, Mamardashvili, Mead, and the list goes on.
> >>>
> >>> Michael
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> ------------------------------
> >>> --------------------
> >>> Applied Cognitive Science
> >>> MacLaurin Building A567
> >>> University of Victoria
> >>> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
> >>> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth
> <http://web.uvic.ca/%7Emroth>
> <http://education2.uvic.ca/ faculty/mroth/
> >>> <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/
> <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>>>
> >>>
> >>> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
> >>> <https://www.sensepublishers.
> com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
> >>> directions-in-mathematics-and- science-education/the-
> >>> mathematics-of-mathematics/
> >>>
> <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
> <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new->
> >> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-
> >> mathematics-of-mathematics/>
> >>>> *
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:08 AM, David Kellogg
> <dkellogg60@gmail.com <mailto: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
> >>>
> <http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full
> <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 <mailto: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
> >>>
> <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2016.1179327
> <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
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd. edu
> >>> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>>
> >>>>> on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil
> <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no <mailto: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
> >>>
> <http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList
> <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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list