[Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion
Wolff-Michael Roth
wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com
Fri Dec 15 17:14:38 PST 2017
To add to Andy's invitation... especially those who read French. In this
book, you have Lucien Sève (whom some may know) and scientists write about
dialectics and non-linear physics (I only have the print version). Michael
https://books.google.ca/books?id=ZoB8T5Ww4KwC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=dialectique+physique+non-lineaire&source=bl&ots=5vhP7kfy64&sig=AKUpaib3cDsaAMYc5GpaMqrDSh4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiU1bOHrY3YAhVW8mMKHdCLCq8Q6AEIKTAA
Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Cognitive Science
MacLaurin Building A567
University of Victoria
Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
http://web.uvic.ca/~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/>*
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> 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