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

[Huw Lloyd]

You're welcome, Alfredo.

On 19 December 2017 at 18:35, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
wrote:

> Huw, I am catching up and have not yet read the responses that follow the
> message below, but I wanted to stop by this entry to applaud your way of
> putting issues in such a positive (in the sense of looking forward to
> advance the argument rather than keeping arguing) and conciliatory way. I
> appreciate it very much, as well as I agree with the content, even if I can
> also see (as I am sure you do as well) that paying due attention and being
> clear about the lineage of concepts is also important.
>
> Alfredo
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> Sent: 18 December 2017 11:04
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4
> article for discussion
>
> 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
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>