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

Sun Dec 17 04:55:05 PST 2017

This leads to a performative contradiction, Michael. If you
are saying that the word "meaning" is not used consistently
in CHAT or across thee various discourses of linguistics, I
heartily agree. But we can't "solve" it with a performative
contradiction!

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 17/12/2017 11:49 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote:
> 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>
>>
>