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

[Wolff-Michael Roth]

Huw,
I am not sure about "deeper," but I see your comment related to the
figure-ground phenomenon. Thus, whatever you articulate is figure against
ground. There is no figure without unseen ground. Perhaps that is your
"deeper". 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 Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:19 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Michael,
>
> I would also make some suppositions here with respect to underlying
> understandings that are applied irrespective of the mode of evidence
> gathering being used. In particular, the nature of quality. I would suggest
> that the quality you see in your own discourse analysis work is a finer and
> more nuanced quality than that presented by someone not familiar with
> quality-as-state or quality-as-system. This would be tantamount to saying
> that there is a deeper theory you are also using, irrespective of whether
> it is explicitly articulated, that would guide you in enriching the
> otherwise more flatter work. In other words, the methods may not
> sufficiently identify what you are looking for, that irrespective of your
> articulating it, you are able to perceive rigorous aspects that are
> potentially not catered for by the mode of presentation.
>
> In a quirky way, one could say that this is not being faithful to the
> methods, to the degree that you are then using 'invisible' guidance (from
> the perspective of someone only familiar with the method in question). To
> this I would say that there are deeper understanding that _could_ be
> articulated and (re-) imported into the methods (where they are decidedly
> flat). Similar circumstances could be applied to CHAT, with the caveat that
> this is a corpus which contains deeper levels which haven't really been
> touched on here.
>
> Does this seem like an accurate depiction, Michael?
>
> Best,
> Huw
>
> On 19 December 2017 at 01:38, Wolff-Michael Roth <
> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Huw,
> > I am not sure whether what I am doing is a natural science trajectory.
> When
> > we look at people's lives---much more detailed than in the vignette I
> > provide---then it all has to do with what makes sense, and the inquiry
> into
> > sense, common and otherwise, and the foundations for what we do, then it
> is
> > not a natural science project.
> >
> > When you ask people like Zeeman, who uses mathematical formulations to
> > model things like the transition from peace to war, and others using
> > mathematical formulations to model job change, then the founder of
> > catastrophe theory (and that math) would disagree. The project is an
> > epistemological one, and Thom uses the theory (which is not a theory in
> the
> > mathematical-scientific sense he will agree) to classify different
> > situations in which new forms are generated independent of the question
> > whether those situations are normally treated by the natural sciences,
> the
> > social sciences, or the humanities.
> >
> > I would see my own endeavor more in this line of thought. In my work, I
> use
> > whatever tool the problem requires. Sometimes it is a mathematical tool,
> > such as when I used fuzzy logic to model the assessment examiners make of
> > pilot performance. In other cases, I analyze language and human
> relations.
> > And I have publications in fields that where people from the humanities
> > would publish (like Semiotica).
> >
> > But you are right. Different people do different things. I think this is
> > coming out in the discussion. David focuses on understanding Vygotsky and
> > tries figuring out what he meant (or so I thought); and he does
> apparently
> > great work in translating Vygotsky for people who do not read Russian. I
> am
> > interested in particular problems, like how people do what they do, and
> how
> > they achieve what they achieve. When a theory doesn't help me (any
> more), I
> > look elsewhere. This is how I overcame my adherence to different
> > theoretical frameworks, which include neo-Piagetian (information
> > processing) theory, radical and social constructivism, discourse analysis
> > (forgets the body), etc. etc. The hardest is to put aside something that
> > one has invested years to build up, like the grasp of a particular
> theory.
> > I understand why many people are hanging onto the same theory----it is
> hard
> > to spend another 5-7 years to build up ones grasp of a new theoretical
> > framework and the body of the literature in the field.
> >
> > Maybe this helps (some) understand
> >
> > 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 Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Having done the leg-work, I might as well share this. Michael can
> please
> > > correct me if I am misrepresenting him:
> > >
> > > Michael's paper presents a mode of inquiry aligned with natural
> science.
> > In
> > > this intent, as with any intent in this mode, the persons involved are
> a
> > > secondary matter. What primarily matters is the viability of what is
> > > presented -- the constellation of meanings presented and whether they
> > > achieve what is claimed.
> > >
> > > Secondary issues to the concern of the paper are whether this work does
> > > actually proceed in, diverge from or transcend previous research
> efforts.
> > >
> > > Of course, these two issues are related. However, I would suggest
> > > (questioning Michael) that this secondary aspect is only really
> relevant
> > to
> > > his initiatives to the degree that the first set of issues conform to
> the
> > > trajectories that he sees within the second set of issues. In other
> > words,
> > > his claim for furthering a Vygotskian project is accidental, the aim is
> > to
> > > further the project irrespective of whether it is Vygotsky's. Although
> a
> > v.
> > > strong case can be made for this view (if it wasn't self-evident) which
> > is
> > > basically tantamount to delivering a course on morphogenesis and logic.
> > >
> > > >From this perspective, the second question is only particularly
> relevant
> > > to
> > > the degree that it affords a clear and strong case in support of this
> > > (natural science) trajectory. Whether something else can be made of it
> is
> > > beside the point. Either way, the basis for a critique on this is not
> > that
> > > something else can be made of Vygotsky's (and the other protagonists)
> > > meanings, but whether that which is presented is viable and (within the
> > > qualifications of a larger project) sufficient.
> > >
> > > My response to this has been that it is fine as far as it goes, but it
> > has
> > > yet to (1) distinguish sufficiently developmental processes from
> > > qualitative change and (2, not previously thrown in to the discussion)
> > does
> > > not (yet) 'qualify' in terms of Ilyenkov's dialectics (which, one may
> > argue
> > > entails a longer term project, if one actually wished to adhere to
> such a
> > > programme rather than refer to alternative sources to address point 1).
> > >
> > > I hope this helps!
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Huw
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
>