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

Sun Dec 17 04:49:42 PST 2017

James, the term *meaning* is so problematic that it might be useful to just
stop using it, or to limit its usage in some way. I make this point in:

Roth, W.-M. (2015). Meaning and the real life of language: Learning from
"pathological" cases in science classrooms. Linguistics and Education, 30,
42–55

the original title was: “Meaning, in essence, means nothing”: lessons about the
real life of language in education from “pathological” cases in science
classrooms (http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth/PREPRINTS/Penis_301R.pdf)

In it I analyze, among others, a classroom episode where physics students'
conversation consists in 10 articulation of the word "penis". (The title
got changed somewhere in the process, perhaps even after the proofs)

And I also deal with the problematic of the term in Roth, W.-M. (2013).
Meaning and mental representation: A pragmatic approach. Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

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 Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 3:39 AM, James Ma <jamesma320@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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>
>