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

[James Ma]

Thanks so much, David. That's really helpful.
James



On 18 December 2017 at 21:46, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:

> James--
>
> I think that "meaning is doing" is not a philosophical principle. When you
> talk to Halliday, he avoids philosophical questions unless they bear quite
> directly on linguistic ones. So for example. whether "matter" and "meaning"
> are two different substances only comes up when you are talking about
> language stratification and not when you are talking about cosmology. Some
> people, particularly in China, have tried to turn him into a philosopher;
> he has always resisted this. Even his essay on his Marxism (in the
> Bloomsbury Companion to Halliday) is mostly about his old comrades and not
> much about his own thinking. When he talks about his notion of
> consciousness (e.g. in the context of when and how children develop a
> content plane distinct from an expression plane), he always mentions
> Vygotsky.
>
> I guess that to me, "meaning is doing" is really more about Halliday's
> refusal to separate theory from practice, his rejection of "applied"
> linguistics in favor of making linguistics appliable, his agenda for a
> "general" linguistics (c.f. Vygotsky's agenda for a "general" psychology).
> Not a general theory of activity, but a general linguistics, because
> language is a natural whole in a way that "activity" is not (we know
> instantly that something is or is not language, just as we know at a glance
> that even a distant figure on the horizon is or is not a human being). But
> Halliday is certainly trans-disciplinary instead of interdisciplinary: it's
> always the living of life which unifies intellectual endeavours and not the
> little trails we sometimes make between separate intellectual cottage
> industries.
>
> I read a lot of Sartre as a young leftist in France and Algeria in the
> seventies and early eighties; the young workers I had known and admired all
> knew and admired the existentialists. But to me it was not Marxist at all:
> Sartre was constantly sniffing around psychoanalytic ideas (e.g. the
> textile machines that have sexual fantasies through young women in
> "Critique de la raison dialectique") and even racial ones (the idea of
> innate culpability, which Sartre was playing with in order to excuse
> indiscriminate terrorist attacks on Frenchmen in Algeria and also to
> explain Lin Biao's notorious notions of "good" and "bad" class
> backgrounds). I find Halliday's Marxism much more sophisticated
> precisely because it is much more focused; in this too Halliday resembles
> Vygotsky.
>
>
>
> 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 Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 5:02 AM, James Ma <jamesma320@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi David, Halliday's "meaning is doing" would sit well with
> existentialism
> > - humans call upon action in order to identify themselves (e.g. Sartre).
> > I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
> > James
> >
> > On 17 December 2017 at 21:52, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, meaning is doing. But my doings are not Vygotsky's, and not
> > > Wolff-Michael's. Another way to say this is that a thread is a text in
> > > context; my text has for its context (its "shang-xia wen", that is, its
> > > "above below text") Vygotsky's and Wolff-Michael's.
> > >
> > > That means that Vygotsky's and Wolff-Michael's texts are not text but
> > > context for me. They are something outside of my semantics and beyond
> my
> > > intentions; they belong to the semantics and obey the intentions of
> > > another. In order to intertwine them in a thread and interweave them
> in a
> > > pattern, I have to use my semantics and my intention to refer to their
> > > texts in a way that recuperates at least part of their own semantics
> and
> > > their own intentions. If I fail to refer, I fail to intertwine. If I
> > > substitute my own thought for theirs, I cannot join the pattern.
> > >
> > > For example, Wolff-Michael uses what I said about the stinking corpse,
> > > which I used to evoke a dead rabbit "eaten" by soil, to evoke an
> argument
> > > in which someone plunges a knife into someone else's chest. This leaves
> > on
> > > a passer-by the general impression that I have somehow behaved
> > aggressively
> > > (as Huw also did). But plunging a knife into an opponent does not
> > > accurately refer to anything that I ever meant, intended, or did, and
> it
> > > does nothing to incorporate my strand: it is only a way of unpicking my
> > > strand from the thread and excluding it from the pattern.
> > >
> > > Fortunately, I am in good company! Wolff-Michael has used Vygotsky's
> > remark
> > > about "perezhivanie of perezhivanie", a remark which was meant to break
> > > the sacred tablets of reflexology, to suggest that Vygotsky didn't
> > believe
> > > in consciousness at birth. He's used Vygotsky's remark about molecules
> as
> > > units of analysis for chemistry to show that Vygotsky did intend a
> > > one-size-fits-all unit of analysis that would work for water molecules
> > and
> > > for birth and for death and for everything in between. The dying
> Vygotsky
> > > referred to Moses's words about not being allowed to set foot in the
> > > promised land because he had broken the tablets given by God.
> > Wolff-Michael
> > > interprets these words to mean that Vygotsky repudiated his own beloved
> > > creations as intellectualistic and non-Marxist. All of these use
> > Vygotsky's
> > > words to exclude Vygotsky's meanings from the pattern.
> > >
> > > Wolff-Michael want to transcend Vygotsky; I would rather translate him.
> > >
> > > 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 Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
> > > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Huw,
> > > >
> > > > As a physicist and physical chemist, and as an applied
> mathematician, I
> > > > don't have trouble other than the perhaps awkward formulation of
> > quantity
> > > > into quality. There are many non-linear phenomena (Andy noted them)
> > where
> > > > you observe this---take the Benard effect, where the water between
> two
> > > > planes at same temp is moving randomly. You heat one plate
> > continuously,
> > > > and the order is the same until, all of a sudden and out of the
> > continued
> > > > energy increase and temp difference between the plates, a new order
> > > emerges
> > > > in the water movement.
> > > >
> > > > There are many social phenomena of this kind, and the Zeeman who uses
> > > > catastrophe theory has shown how you model some of them, like peace
> > into
> > > > war conversation when trouble linearly increases. I guess arguments
> are
> > > of
> > > > that type, and David's story of how a living person ends up in a
> > stinking
> > > > corpse---after beginning to argue with another to the point that the
> > > other
> > > > sticks a knife into his heart---would be a nice illustration of how
> > > > something innocuous slowly aggravates and then all of a sudden goes
> > > through
> > > > a qualitative change. Any phase change of a particular material shows
> > > this,
> > > > and physical chemists have nice diagrams to show the phase change
> that
> > > come
> > > > with continuous increases in some variable.
> > > >
> > > > About the person-environment: If you take the universe, there are no
> > > forces
> > > > from the outside, everything is happening on the inside of it,
> > including
> > > > our descriptions. If you go to Bateson or Dewey, they will tell you
> > that
> > > > you need to take the description into account as well in the system.
> > > > Psychologists arbitrarily take the skin as the boundary. Vygotsky in
> > > > Myshlenie i resh' put it around thinking-speech (unit =
> word-meaning),
> > > > although in the same book he says that meaning is only the lowest
> level
> > > of
> > > > the more complex sense [smysl], which evolves and requires knowing
> the
> > > > whole world.
> > > >
> > > > Any modern Spinozist will tell you that biology does not get us
> > anywhere,
> > > > and epistemology (psychology) doesn't either. Il'enkov proposes the
> > > > thinking-body, but this is not a composition (addition,
> multiplication,
> > > > synthesis) of the biological body and the mind. Again, Spinozists
> will
> > > tell
> > > > you that the physical body and thought are manifestations of
> substance.
> > > You
> > > > will find similar discussions in the materialist philosophy of Michel
> > > Henry
> > > > (*Incarnation: Une philosophie de la chair*), where life and the
> first,
> > > > originary body are invisible.
> > > >
> > > > Concerning David's comment. My hunch would be that Vygotsky was on
> the
> > > > verge of developing a Marxian Spinozist psychology, but he was not
> > there
> > > > yet. Ekaterina Yu. Zavershneva, based on reading LSV's notes, is
> > > convinced
> > > > that he realized his own intellectualism, and intellectualism is not
> > > > Marxist.
> > > >
> > > > I would also think that LSV---I know David is a devotee---only went
> so
> > > far.
> > > > LSV writes: "I will die at the summit like Moses, having glimpsed the
> > > > prom[ised] land but without setting foot on it. Farewell, dear
> > > creations".
> > > > IN 1932 he writes: "Our def[i]c[ie]ncy is not a def[i]c[ie]ncy of
> > facts,
> > > > but the untenability of the theory". (all quotations from Zaversheva,
> > > 2010,
> > > > in J Rus + East Europ Psych). He writes about his own theory as
> > > untenable.
> > > > We are allowed to put our feet into the promised land. We have the
> > right
> > > to
> > > > go further, to the point of overturning what he had done.
> > > >
> > > > 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 Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Huw Lloyd <
> huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Michael,
> > > > >
> > > > > First, thanks for the references to both Holzkamp and Marx & Engels
> > use
> > > > of
> > > > > "leading activity".
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding the espoused emphasis of the paper, neoformation, the
> focus
> > > > seems
> > > > > to drift between a focus upon changes in qualitative behaviour that
> > do
> > > > not
> > > > > necessitate developmental change and towards those that do. By
> > > > development
> > > > > I mean the formation of organised behaviours that were not
> previously
> > > > > accessible that also implicate a larger object of activity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Personally, I do not find the phrase "quantity into quality" useful
> > > > beyond
> > > > > a priming for the relevant ingredients. The 'naive' description of
> > one
> > > > > thing turning into another is a change of quality, i.e. one quality
> > > (not
> > > > a
> > > > > quantity) turning into another quality. I suppose the original
> > > expression
> > > > > is concerned with a taken-for-granted quality that turns into a new
> > > > quality
> > > > > ostensibly through the instrumentation of a change in quantity (to
> > > > project
> > > > > a cause-effect model).
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding a study of the empirical content within the appropriate
> > > > > dimensions, I would say that the account of the teacher changing
> > > his/her
> > > > > practices is indicative but not sufficient to identify this as a
> > > > > developmental change (in the sense I use it). Also without
> > identifying
> > > > the
> > > > > holistic character of the change(s) -- both macro and micro -- I
> > think
> > > > > there is more scope for attributing the changes to things other
> than
> > > what
> > > > > you have identified, or to bring these into question. A way to show
> > > this
> > > > > would be in terms of the teacher's broadening of his/her object of
> > > > > activity/unit of analysis (which need not be larger
> > materialistically,
> > > > but
> > > > > in fidelity). In this vein it would be interesting to consider how
> > this
> > > > can
> > > > > be advanced upon fragmentally, i.e. from initial exposure to
> certain
> > > > > practices that achieve things that the teacher's present methods do
> > not
> > > > > achieve progressing to a deeper considerations for how to achieve
> > this
> > > > > holistically along with the newly encroaching limitations. Also
> > within
> > > > the
> > > > > teacher example, there is the implication that the previous methods
> > > were
> > > > > the teacher's own -- as we know this is not necessarily the case,
> > they
> > > > may
> > > > > be the methods unquestionably adopted under the assumption that
> > > > > institutional society knows what it is doing, hence without knowing
> > > more
> > > > > this could also be an awakening to the naive assumptions of a
> > teaching
> > > > > institution.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is also potential confusion here between the internal of
> affect
> > > and
> > > > > the internal of thought-based action. The pointing to an assumed
> > > external
> > > > > source as a stimulus for development is, from my perspective, not
> > > > > necessarily the case either, whereby an internal dialogue may be
> > > > maintained
> > > > > to realise something new (perhaps more attributable to an adult).
> > > Either
> > > > > way, I would say the developee is sharing in this larger unit from
> > the
> > > > > outset of their 'readiness', even if they are unable to articulate
> it
> > > --
> > > > > they know enough to afford their volitional heightened
> concentration
> > to
> > > > > take them into (for them) unexplored territory (I can provide
> > anecdotal
> > > > > examples if you want them).
> > > > >
> > > > > >From a cybernetic perspective the "subject-environment unit" can
> be
> > > > > misleading. Cybernetics would argue that it is all in the
> > > > self-perpetuating
> > > > > processes of the agent (the complex organism), through which the
> > > > > environment manifests, i.e. the environment is only 'real' to agent
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > extent that it is reflected in the agent's own individuality. I
> take
> > > > > Sasha's paper to be much supportive of this view, with perhaps some
> > > > > trailing legacies (from Ilyenkov's reinvigoration), such as
> imputing
> > > > > "material existence" to be of the same complexity (concreteness) of
> > > that
> > > > > which is achieved by the advanced technology of dialectics... it
> is,
> > I
> > > > > believe, a fairly harmless transition to recognise that this
> > concretely
> > > > > complex material existences is merely an unknown and hypothetically
> > > > assumed
> > > > > to be that of the most sophisticated thought of the time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also I appreciate that this can be quite exhausting work and that
> > > perhaps
> > > > > the way you are approaching it by imputing development to
> > observations
> > > is
> > > > > an energetically stimulating manner of working into the subject and
> > its
> > > > > problems. I also note that you have pulled in references from
> various
> > > > > sources (neoformation, leading activity, crisis,
> environment-subject,
> > > > > internal, moment) and it is quite easy for me to assume that your
> > ideas
> > > > > here overlap with mine. Perhaps an equally important test is
> whether
> > > the
> > > > > paper is coherent for someone who doesn't have this background.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the opportunity to read and discuss the paper.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Huw
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 16 December 2017 at 08:55, Alfredo Jornet Gil <
> > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks, Andy,
> > > > > > Alfredo
> > > > > > ________________________________________
> > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.
> > > edu
> > > > >
> > > > > > on behalf of Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> > > > > > Sent: 16 December 2017 08:43
> > > > > > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change:
> Issue
> > 4
> > > > > > article for discussion
> > > > > >
> > > > > > attached, Bill
> > > > > >
> > > > > > a
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > Andy Blunden
> > > > > > http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> > > > > > On 16/12/2017 6:38 PM, Bill Kerr wrote:
> > > > > > > hi Alfredo,
> > > > > > > I downloaded Michael's first article and David's response. Is
> > > > Michael's
> > > > > > > response to David (Looking back to the Future) still available
> > as a
> > > > > free
> > > > > > > download? When I go to the site I get an invitation to login or
> > > > > purchase.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Interested in this discussion.
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Bill Kerr
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <
> > > > > a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> 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>