[Xmca-l] Re: ZPD and DST!

Fri Mar 31 06:54:44 PDT 2017

Sorry, my last message crossed that of Andy, but is a response to it as
well. For those who do not know Jean-Luc Nancy, he is probably one of the
leading philosophers in Europe, who also has a lot to say of the body (not
in the least in his *Corpus*). 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 Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Robert Lake <boblake@georgiasouthern.edu>
wrote:

> That 2 cents goes a long, long generative way Andy. Thanks!
>
> Robert
>
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:52 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
> > My 2 cents ...
> >
> > 1. Both Hegel and C. S. Peirce promoted mediation not only as essentially
> > ubiquitous, but as *generative*, in the sense that since every relation
> is
> > mediated, every new relation generates a new (mediating) relation. It is
> a
> > method of enquiry which is forever uncovering new relations. I would call
> > this the methodological aspect of mediation. To fail to enquire into
> > mediation is effectively to close off enquiry and settle for some kind of
> > dichotomy or taxonomy.
> >
> > 2. Vygotsky's *artefact mediation*, is a distinctive type of mediation,
> to
> > which other approaches to mind are largely blind. Artefact mediation is
> not
> > the answer to every problem of psychology. And it wasn't for Vygotsky
> > either.
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > Andy Blunden
> > http://home.mira.net/~andy
> > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
> > On 31/03/2017 8:44 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote:
> >
> >> The title has a somewhat oxymoronic flavour to it, Alfredo.  Theorising
> >> gets more interesting when it consists of a minimum of a 3-term system,
> >> and
> >> in such a system one term can always be indexed as a mediating one in
> >> relation to the other two.  All the problems arise when these terms are
> >> reduced to 2-term systems (formal logic, statistical associations,
> >> descriptions based upon typed categories) in which the mediators are
> >> elements of a non-unitary analysis.
> >>
> >> The issues of misuse of 'mediators' as elements rather than as part of a
> >> unit is structurally similar to applying formal logic categories such as
> >> "every" and "there exists" to thinking in terms of complexes, in which
> >> these phrases merely limit the (1 term) bonding rather than applying to
> >> the
> >> (2 term) hierarchical constructs that they are about.  In LSV Vol. 1 we
> >> have a 3+ term analysis (dialectic) of the development of 1-term
> thinking
> >> (complexes) towards 2-term thinking (formal logic).
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Huw
> >>
> >> On 31 March 2017 at 06:21, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks a lot for sharing the article, Michael. And yes, considering
> those
> >>> copy-distribution issues is important in a forum like this. Is nice to
> be
> >>> able to check with you/us authors on how to best share our work.
> >>>
> >>> On the issue of Theorizing with/out mediators, Huw, in the article we
> do
> >>> recognize the viability of the option you suggest: not dismissing but
> >>> pursuing an 'adequate' (or 'more developed'  that may mean)
> understanding
> >>> of the concept. Still, we recommend the other route, and this is part
> of
> >>> my
> >>> view.
> >>>
> >>> I think the problem concerns a confusion between treating mediation as
> a
> >>> sort of universal premise that 'applies' to everything or as an
> >>> analytical
> >>> concept that 'explains' everything. For example, David K. in his post
> >>> treats the phrase that 'if mediation explains everything then it
> explains
> >>> nothing' as being analog to the sentence 'if perception applies to all
> >>> visible phenomena then it applies to none of them.' 'Applies' and
> >>> 'Explain', however, seem two very different words to me. You may want
> to
> >>> say that mediation applies to all and every human action/relation. But
> >>> then
> >>> this is not to say that you are explaining any of them. As I view it,
> >>> mediation should not be thought of as an analytical unit in the same
> >>> sense
> >>> that perezhivanie is, for it is not a concrete unit. In fact, following
> >>> on
> >>> David's example, *perception* can indeed be accounted for if you
> develop
> >>> and further understand the category perezhivanie. And still, you will
> not
> >>> want to use perezhivanie to account for every and any aspect of human
> >>> existence. Nor every instance of 'human(ing)' will be perezhivanie
> >>> (unless
> >>> you reserve the term 'human' to a very specific set of all the things
> we
> >>> human-looking animals do.).
> >>>
> >>> Alfredo
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________________
> >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> >
> >>> on behalf of mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
> >>> Sent: 31 March 2017 02:38
> >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ZPD and DST!
> >>>
> >>> Thanks Michael.
> >>> Establishing fair use in the xmca community seems an important task.
> >>>
> >>> Your solution works given current uncertainties.
> >>>
> >>> mike
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
> >>> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Mike, all,
> >>>> Because I don't know what big companies can do to us if we violate
> >>>> signed
> >>>> copyright release, I am more than hesitant to send the type-set
> version
> >>>> they published. However, I am appending the final version of the
> >>>>
> >>> manuscript
> >>>
> >>>> that prior to acceptance.
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> 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, Mar 30, 2017 at 5:09 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Michael --
> >>>>>
> >>>>> XMCA has been operating as an educational collective among whom
> >>>>>
> >>>> relevant
> >>>
> >>>> written materials are circulated as they are needed for the the
> >>>>>
> >>>> members'
> >>>
> >>>> education.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Would it incur Springer's wrath to make the paper directly available?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> mike
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
> >>>>> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi all, I did not realize that my reference wasn't updated. The paper
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> is
> >>>>
> >>>>> here:
> >>>>>> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12124-016-9376-0
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> and by personal request Alfredo or I will mail a copy to those not
> >>>>>> operating at a uni with access to Springer Link.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 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, Mar 30, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
> >>>>>> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi David, you will disagree even more with this one:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Roth, W.-M., & Jornet, A. (in press). Theorizing with/out
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> "mediators."
> >>>>
> >>>>> Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But people like Feliks Mikhailov, and also Ekaterina Zavershneva
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> indicate
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> that toward the end of his life, Vygotsy was moving away from
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> mediation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> We
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> give an extended argument for theorizing without mediators in the
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> article.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But I hope you understand that I am not out to interpret and find
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> out
> >>>
> >>>> what
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Vygotsky really said even if he did not say it. I think you are
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> well
> >>>
> >>>> positioned to do THAT kind of research. I want to move on. And,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> frankly,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> have no clue what people are saying when they write that something
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> is
> >>>
> >>>> mediated. It seems to me that they are hiding or refraining from
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> going
> >>>>
> >>>>> after what I am interested in. I am not interested in knowing that
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> a
> >>>
> >>>> tool
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> mediates something. I am interested in what the tool actually does,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> what
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> are the events in which tools participate, shape people and get
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> shaped
> >>>>
> >>>>> by
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> them.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In the end, all this is about finding suitable discourses, and
> >>>>>>> descriptions, for doing the kinds of things we want to do.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> m
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>> --------------------
> >>>>>>> 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, Mar 30, 2017 at 2:22 PM, David Kellogg <
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> dkellogg60@gmail.com
> >>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think the Roth article I would recommend isn't the editorial,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> but
> >>>
> >>>> rather
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> this one:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Roth, W-M. 2007. On Mediation: Towards a Cultural Historical
> >>>>>>>> Understanding.
> >>>>>>>> Theory and Psychology 17 (5): 655-680.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> There's a lot I disagree with in this paper (e.g. I disagree with
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>
> >>>>> idea
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> that if mediation "explains" everything then it explains
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> nothing--it
> >>>
> >>>> is
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> like saying that if perception applies to all visible phenomena
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> then
> >>>
> >>>> it
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> applies to none of them). But here's why I prefer it to Saeed's
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> paper:
> >>>>
> >>>>> a) Roth gets to concrete examples from direct experience almost
> >>>>>>>> immediately
> >>>>>>>> (fish feeding, on p. 656). This gives me something to go back to
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> when
> >>>>
> >>>>> I
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> get
> >>>>>>>> lost in abstraction, and I need it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> b) Instead of using Theory A to illuminate Theory B, Roth goes
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> back
> >>>
> >>>> into
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> the historical origins of Theory A and discovers, immanently,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Theory
> >>>
> >>>> B,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> C,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> etc.. This has two advantages: it avoids chalk-and-cheese
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> eclecticism,
> >>>>
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> it helps me understand how Theory A was formed in the first place.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> With
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Saeed's paper, I find myself missing: 1) an account of the
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> CRITICAL
> >>>
> >>>> DISTINCTIONS between the two theories, 2) an explanation of how
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> each
> >>>
> >>>> MAKES
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> UP for what the other lacks, and 3) some argument for long term
> >>>>>>>> COMPATABILITY, some explication of why the emulsion will not
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> re-separate,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> like vinegar and oil.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> c) For Vygotsky--no, for mediation more generally--the key problem
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> is
> >>>>
> >>>>> volition, free will, choice. Vygotsky once said that the most
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> interesting
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> problem in the whole of psychology, bar none, is what a human
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> being
> >>>
> >>>> would
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> really do in the situation of Buridan's donkey (that is a
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> situation
> >>>
> >>>> of
> >>>>
> >>>>> volition, of free will, of choice where the outcomes were either
> >>>>>>>> apparently
> >>>>>>>> equal or equally unknown). This isn't true of DST, which has, as
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Saeed
> >>>>
> >>>>> admits, an "emergentist" account of volition (to put it
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> uncharitably,
> >>>>
> >>>>> handwaving and magic). At the very least, choice is late emerging
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> in a
> >>>>
> >>>>> DST
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> account, and that makes, for example, the child's early and
> >>>>>>>> successful acquisition of speech very hard to explain.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That said, Saeed--I DID appreciate the part on p. 86 where you
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> remind
> >>>>
> >>>>> us
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> that learning and development are distinct but linked. As
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Wolff-Michael
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> says, the point has been made before, but I think that we've got
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>
> >>>> keep
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> saying this, until people really see that mixing up "microgenesis"
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>
> >>>>> ontogenesis is, in our own time, the same kind of error that
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> mixing
> >>>
> >>>> up
> >>>>
> >>>>> ontogenesis and phylogenesis was in Vygotsky's. If I read one more
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> article
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> which invokes the ZPD for some trivial incident of learning, I'm
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> getting a
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> tattoo that says: "Look here, mate, just because it didn't kill ya
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> doesn't
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> mean it made ya any stronger".
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> David Kellogg
> >>>>>>>> Macquarie University
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Robert Lake  Ed.D.
> Associate Professor
> Social Foundations of Education
> Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading
> Georgia Southern University
> P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA  30460
> Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group
> Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy must be
> born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John
> Dewey-*Democracy
> and Education*,1916, p. 139
>