[Xmca-l] Re: ZPD and DST!

Fri Mar 31 13:03:50 PDT 2017

On 31 March 2017 at 20:00, Wolff-Michael Roth <wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Huw, for some reason I didn't get your message. I am not accessing the
> paper right now. But I don't think I made the point #3. To me this is the
> problem of the thesis-antithesis approach, because it requires mediation.
> Philosophers have pointed this out. Michael
>
>
Hi Michael,

I think it is only a problem when it is treated as something only within
the province of a philosophical discourse.

I had to tackle this problem when I was getting to grips with Davydov's
formulations (which reference dialectics extensively).  In fact, I wrote a
masters thesis contrasting genetic functional systems (Bateson, Baldwin,
Beer, Waddington, Luria etc) with Davydov's dialectics as part of this
understanding.  The paper did not go down favourably, and it wasn't clear
to me whether this was down to a failure in the administrative supervisors
to comprehend the work (I am certain they did not understand it) or
whether, indeed, something more sinister was at play (as I had made it
clear that I was looking to transfer my research funding somewhere more
suitable).

Anyway, I don't view this issue as overtly philosophical. The point is that
it is the fusion of the two things, realised through some carrier, that
expresses their commensurability.  So with thought and speech we can look
to the carrier/medium of activity or action. I have been looking a little
at parallel work undertaken within the history of inventive work within
20th C. Russia (TRIZ), in which the search for the appropriate medium is a
fundamental principle, and in which dialectics and contradictions are part
and parcel of the work.

Best,
Huw

> ------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------
> 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 11:50 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> wrote:
>
> > Huw, I also wanted to thank you and acknowledge your interesting work,
> > which is very useful to overview a wide range of CHAT scholars and their
> > use of notions scubas as mediation. I hope many others in this list also
> > look at it. Thanks for sharing it!
> > Alfredo
> > ________________________________________
> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > on behalf of Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> > Sent: 31 March 2017 02:25
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: ZPD and DST!
> >
> > Thank you for the paper, Michael. I have skim-read this and am largely in
> > agreement with the content.  However, I think I disagree about some
> implied
> > premises.  My sense is that these issues are largely a symptom of
> > undeveloped systems and theoretical skills in this area, which I would
> say
> > is essential for real progress. On that basis I would not suggest that
> > people omit the use of certain terms, but rather that they keep tripping
> > over them until they study them more carefully.
> >
> > A few pointers, perhaps:
> > 1. Field is synonymous with medium (a cognate of media in the
> > non-fashionable sense).
> > 2. The 'mis-use' of tool/sign mediation as in non-unitary forms in CHAT
> is,
> > I believe, largely a result of construing the object of activity socially
> > rather than psychologically, i.e. in which orientation is the
> field/medium.
> > (Some elaboration here:
> > https://www.academia.edu/24660665/A_Comparison_of_
> > Seven_Historical_Research_Orientations_within_CHAT_up_to_2001_
> > )
> > 3. In "thesis-antithesis" dialectics there is a medium implicated.
> >
> > Best,
> > Huw
> >
> >
> > On 31 March 2017 at 00:42, 배희철 <ggladduck@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, Roth.
> > > I want a copy.
> > >
> > > 2017-03-31 7:26 GMT+09:00 Wolff-Michael Roth <
> > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>