[Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion
Huw Lloyd
huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
Fri Dec 15 17:40:18 PST 2017
More specifically, the "external system" is a (viable) projection. The
system of observation (or system of observing) is recognising the role of
the observer (as a system). It becomes quite clear-cut in considering those
who do not recognise the "blind spot" of a system of observation, i.e. when
they do not distinguish an "out there" from the model imposed (though I
take your reference, Andy, to be a short-cut), hence the distinction
between "hard systems" and "soft systems". It's bearing upon the discussion
is that the observer's search for organisational features and discernment
of appropriate boundaries is maintained across the two overt systems in the
knowledge of generalisable systemic behaviour. Hence when David laments the
comparison of water with a complex organ, there is room for overlooking
that the commensurability is not of these things, but of the respective
search for organisational structures and their related features, which is a
property of the observer's method and not the respective overt phenomena.
It's late here, will hopefully post something on Michael's paper soon.
Best,
Huw
On 16 December 2017 at 00:55, 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