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

Sun Dec 17 03:39:47 PST 2017

Hello Michael, for some reason I missed out your message; now I've read it
and your article too. You might still disagree with me, but this is how I
see it through the lens of materialist dialectics:

Experience as perceptual understanding precedes meaning as rational
understanding,
with the latter not only bearing the heritage of but also reaching a
sublimation of the former. Thus, there is neither experience-less meaning
nor meaning-less experience, and hence the defining of consciousness as the
experience of experiences is to go hand in hand with the defining of
consciousness as the meaning of meanings.

James

*_____________________________________*

*James Ma*  *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa
<https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa>   *

On 14 December 2017 at 22:54, Wolff-Michael Roth <
wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi James, it looks like you did not read my message or my message did not
> come through. For Vygotsky, consciousness is experience of experience, not
> meaning of meaning. The "inner contradictions" are not logical ones, like
> your talk about the mental suggests. They exist because activity theory
> looks at living phenomena, which, because in time and producing time,
> inherently contain differences... The smallest unit of movement still is
> movement, and within it, there is change, so that the different parts are
> not the same but themselves in movement. 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://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 Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:45 PM, James Ma <jamesma320@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > David's point that consciousness is the meaning of meaning suits me well
> > and I'd like to extend a bit, referring to social science research in
> > general as well as neoformation in materialist dialectics.
> >
> >
> >
> > I see consciousness as a nexus through which mental activity takes place,
> > i.e. it is where mental content is enlivened (animated) or more to the
> > point "semiotised" in that it is predominantly made up of signs (or
> > "psychic images" as Jung would say) and their likeness. This brings into
> > focus the relationship between signs and their likeness - such
> relationship
> > manifests itself as the meaning of meaning that is ever intentional
> > (wilful), interpretative (hence subjective) and situational (tied to
> given
> > social, cultural and historical contexts).
> >
> >
> >
> > Premised on this, in social science research, the researcher's
> > self-function as instrument for research is arguably to be first and
> > foremost recognised. The profundity of ethics is thus concerned with
> people
> > and knowledge. Here, "people" refers to not only those you are studying
> but
> > also those who are conducting the study; "knowledge" contains the notion
> > that by doing research you make a claim to knowledge in terms of how you
> > see what you see and why. The very purpose of social science research is
> > thus not to offer a definitive answer to a big question but rather to
> > induct other people into your way of thinking and knowing. In this sense,
> > social science research is by nature subjective, self-evident and
> > insusceptible of final conclusions - to which the *ad infinitum* of
> > Peircean semiosis applies.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regarding neoformation, the transformation of quantity into quality
> occurs
> > when the meaning of meaning undergoes reconstitution or reconstruction
> > within the individual, as in the case of Leandro in Roth's article.
> > Importantly, internal contradictions within an individual precipitate
> > neoformation as a qualitative change, that is, instead of knowing, he is
> > reconstituting or reconstructing the meaning of meaning instead of
> knowing
> > it.
> >
> >
> >
> > James
> >
> >
> > On 13 December 2017 at 11:08, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Alfredo:
> > >
> > > Actually, I think there are three threads we can twist together.
> > >
> > > a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major issues that divided
> > Vygotsky
> > > from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. Isaac Spielrein).
> > Vygotsky
> > > was consistent: the child is not a short adult, and the adult is not a
> > > senile child, so child development cannot be seen as a kind of dress
> > > rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult development be seen as
> > > continuing child development by other means: there is a qualitative
> > > difference between the adolescent and the young adult that does not
> exist
> > > even between the schoolchild and the adolescent.
> > >
> > > b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should he even have tried?
> > This
> > > is one of the issues that divides Sasha from Wolff-Michael, and also
> > > divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes that without rising to
> the
> > > concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method at all. To me that
> > > necessarily means making the concept of neoformation more specific and
> > more
> > > age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it much more general and
> > > consequently abstract.
> > >
> > > c)  What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) and what would it mean
> > for
> > > it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has set a cat amongst the
> > > pigeons by defining consciousness itself as "perizhivanie of
> > > perizhivanie".  On the one hand, this seems to suggest that
> consciousness
> > > is an afterthought, and that children cannot have any consciousness at
> > all;
> > > it also seems (to me) to imply that consciousness is essentially
> > > individual, the product of reflection upon reflections (and there is a
> > > similar argument being made, rather sloppily, by Michael Luntley in the
> > > current Educational Philosophical and Theory...
> > >
> > > Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, Educational Philosophy and
> Theory,
> > > 49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341
> > >
> > > And yet there are two things about Wolff-Michael's formula that do
> appeal
> > > to me:
> > >
> > > 1. The idea that dialectical development is essentially differentiation
> > and
> > > not replacement of one form by another. If consciousness is essentially
> > > perizhivanie turned back on itself (like language turned back on
> itself)
> > it
> > > is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it.
> > >
> > > 2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of meaning". Of course,
> > > that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I get when I turn it
> back
> > > on itself....
> > >
> > >
> > > David Kellogg
> > >
> > > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric,
> > > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on “Neoformation: A
> > > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change”'
> > >
> > > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at
> > >
> > > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <
> a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just a reminder that the article for discussion on neoformation is
> now
> > > > open access at the MCA T&F pages.
> > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2016.1179327
> > > >
> > > > There recently were questions in this list concerning adult
> > development.
> > > > There was then no mention to this article, which I think was already
> > > > published, but it turns out that it discusses a developmental
> turn-over
> > > in
> > > > the professional and everyday life of an adult teacher, using and
> > > > discussing the concept of neoformation and the associated law of
> > > transition
> > > > of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced the concept in writings
> > > about
> > > > child development, and so I assume there may be issues or challenges
> > > > specific to the extension of these notions beyond child development.
> I
> > > > wonder what others in this list and outside it think, how and whether
> > > those
> > > > interested in adult development find the contributions present in the
> > > > article relevant/appealing/problematic...
> > > >
> > > > Alfredo
> > > > ________________________________________
> > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.
> edu
> > >
> > > > on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> > > > Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33
> > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4
> > article
> > > > for    discussion
> > > >
> > > > Steemed xmca'ers,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected
> > > article
> > > > from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by
> > Wolff-Michael
> > > > Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental
> Change?".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a
> brief
> > > > time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian
> notion
> > > > that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common
> in
> > > the
> > > > literature, despite having quite a methodological import in
> Vygotsky's
> > > > writings.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and
> critiques
> > to
> > > > Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article
> brings
> > > > with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open access
> > > right
> > > > now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The whole issue is published here:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming
> days,
> > > and
> > > > I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy
> > > bringing
> > > > in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we
> have
> > > for
> > > > digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live
> on
> > in
> > > > current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Alfredo
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_
> > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> > Virus-free.
> > www.avast.com
> > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_
> > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> >
>

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