[Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented activity and communication
Andy Blunden
ablunden@mira.net
Fri Oct 13 19:34:27 PDT 2017
This is the Progress Publishers translation, Martin:
Activity is a molar, not an additive unit of the life of
the physical, material subject. In a narrower sense,
that is, at the psychological level, it is a unit of
life, mediated by psychic reflection, the real function
of which is that it orients the subject in the objective
world. In other words, activity is not a reaction and
not a totality of reactions but a system that has
structure, its own internal transitions and
transformations, its own development.
I presume what you posted was your own?
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 14/10/2017 1:17 PM, Martin John Packer wrote:
> Activity is a molar, not an additive unit of life
> corporal, material subject. In a more narrow sense,
> those. at the psychological level, this is a unit of life,
> mediated by mental reflection, the real function
> which consists in the fact that it orientates the subject in
> objective world. In other words, the activity is not
> reaction and not a set of reactions, but a system that has
> structure, its internal transitions and transformations, its development.
>
> Martin
>
>
>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 7:53 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>
>> This is the opening paragraph of ch. 3, s. 2 ofДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТЬ.
>> СОЗНАНИЕ. ЛИЧНОСТЬ
>>
>> Деятельность есть молярная, не аддитивная единица жизни
>> телесного, материального субъекта. В более узком смысле,
>> т.е. на психологическом уровне, это единица жизни,
>> опосредованной психическим отражением, реальная функция
>> которого состоит в том, что оно ориентирует субъекта в
>> предметном мире. Иными словами, деятельность – это не
>> реакция и не совокупность реакций, а система, имеющая
>> строение, свои внутренние переходы и превращения, свое развитие.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> Andy Blunden
>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>> On 14/10/2017 11:36 AM, mike cole wrote:
>>> Thanks for being so concrete, Andy.
>>> Could someone post the Russian text next to the English so
>>> that it is possible to compare it with the translation? I
>>> spent several hundred hours on trying to edit "Development
>>> of Mind" for Progress as a post-doc and it totally
>>> defeated me. I sent it back with an apology and not extra
>>> rubles in my pocket.
>>>
>>> Perhaps the expertise in this discussion can warrant us a
>>> "true" translation.
>>>
>>> mike
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Andy Blunden
>>> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The Progress Publishers English translation of
>>> "Activity and
>>> Consciousness" in /Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of
>>> Dialectical Materialism/, 1977 has the following:
>>>
>>> Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal,
>>> material life of the material subject. In the narrower
>>> sense, i.e., on the psychological plane, it is a
>>> unit of
>>> life, mediated by mental reflection, by
>>> an /image,/ whose real function is to orientate the
>>> subject in the objective world.
>>>
>>> In the "Problem of the Origin of Sensation" in "The
>>> Development of Mind" we have:
>>>
>>> Thus, the principal ‘unit’ of a vital process is an
>>> organism’s activity; the different activities that realise
>>> its diverse vital relations with the surrounding
>>> reality are
>>> essentially determined by their object; we shall therefore
>>> differentiate between separate [i.e., qualitatively
>>> different] types of activity according to the
>>> difference in
>>> their objects.
>>>
>>> By calling "activity" a "unit," the first quote uses
>>> "activity" as if it were a countable noun. The effect has
>>> been that the meaning of "unit" has been mystified for
>>> English-speakers. It has generally been taken to mean
>>> simply
>>> "category." The second does the same, but in addition
>>> makes
>>> it evident that the plural does not refer to different
>>> activities, but to *types* of activity. This blocks the
>>> possibility of forming a true concept of activity
>>> altogether.
>>>
>>> With reference to your paragraph, Sasha, if your claim is
>>> simply that "such an initial *category* can only be
>>> object-oriented activity" I have no objection, supposing
>>> that you do not aim to utilise Vygotsky's method of units,
>>> even in the half-hearted way AN Leontyev did.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> Andy Blunden
>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>>> <http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
>>> On 13/10/2017 11:57 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote:
>>>> Dear Andy!
>>>> I am glad that our communication was resumed after many
>>>> years. The other day I was reviewing old letters and
>>> files
>>>> and found that the problem of "object oriented
>>> activity OR
>>>> communication" we discussed in the summer of 2006 before
>>>> our meeting in Melbourne. Well, the problem is
>>> serious and
>>>> it deserves to return to it today.
>>>> Last year I was close to being silent forever.
>>>> Fortunately, fate and well-chosen chemotherapy postponed
>>>> this case for an indefinite period. Therefore, I had the
>>>> opportunity and the time to try to sum up some of my
>>>> theoretical studies without entrusting this matter to my
>>>> descendants :-).
>>>> I will begin with honest recognition that I do not
>>>> understand your question. What means the distinction
>>>> between singular and plural number in your remark? Could
>>>> you give an example of the "wrong" translation of the
>>>> Leontief theoretical texts you mentioned? Although my
>>>> concept and the concept of AN Leontiev do not coincide,
>>>> moreover, I formulated the "Principles of the theory of
>>>> reflexive activity" (that is the title of my
>>> dissertation
>>>> work) in direct controversy with AN Leontiev's
>>> "Theory of
>>>> Activity", we coincide with him in method. Therefore,
>>>> having understood the theoretic meaning of your
>>> claims to
>>>> AN Leontiev or his translators, I can more easily
>>>> understand the essence of your objections to me.
>>>> In the meantime, I can say that both AN Leontiev and I
>>>> view "activity" as a theoretical category, and not as a
>>>> particular empirical case of its manifestation.
>>> Therefore,
>>>> object-oriented ACTIVITY there can be only one. Just
>>> like
>>>> Matter, Nature, or Substance.
>>>> Of course, with the Substance as totality, we come
>>> across
>>>> only in theory. Empirically, we are dealing with its
>>>> innumerable Modes. However, to draw from this the
>>>> conclusion that Substance is just a fiction of old
>>>> philosophers and that only the numerous individual
>>> "atomic
>>>> facts" of Wittgenstein with their plural number really
>>>> exist, it means to leave Spinoza and Marx for vulgar
>>>> positivism and empiricism.
>>>> However, all of this may not apply to your position ...
>>>> I will be glad to hear your explanations on this issue.
>>>> Best wishes
>>>> Sasha
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> воскресенье, 8 октября 2017 16:15 Andy Blunden
>>>> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> писал(а):
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll ask Sasha a question.
>>>>
>>>> Sasha, when you say "activity" as in "such an initial
>>>> category can only be object-oriented activity" as it
>>> stands,
>>>> in English, this is clearly wrong, though it may be
>>> that you
>>>> are translating it from a Russian statement that is
>>> correct.
>>>> Surely you mean "object-oriented activities", as in
>>> when I
>>>> say "every activity has an object." But in your
>>> expression
>>>> above "activity" is not a word which has a plural
>>> and unless
>>>> you are a religious person is not something which
>>> can have a
>>>> specific object. All English translations of A N
>>> Leontyev
>>>> make this mistake which has caused no end of
>>> confusion among
>>>> English-speakers.
>>>>
>>>> Am I right? You meant "activities" not "activity,"
>>> just as
>>>> you wouldn't say "water is a unit of water."
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>>> <http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
>>>> On 9/10/2017 12:03 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
>>>>> Dear Sasha, all,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks for this brilliant, though also demanding
>>>> response. I think you are right in your assertion
>>> that we
>>>> are discussing some of the most fundamental problems of
>>>> CHAT, and therefore it may be worth the try.
>>> However, one
>>>> can see in the lack of response by other members that
>>>> not everyone has the privilege of the time it
>>> requires to
>>>> go through all of it. In any case, I continue believing
>>>> that this is a valuable resource for xmca to produce
>>> and I
>>>> hope it is/will be appreciated as such.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I may summarise the core of your argument, I
>>> quote
>>>> from your response:
>>>>>
>>>>> "If we want to make our choice of the initial
>>> category,
>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then
>>> for us
>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will
>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can
>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including
>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that
>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented
>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication
>>> from the
>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from
>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such
>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or
>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence"
>>>>>
>>>>> If we stay within the boundaries of the framework
>>>> according to which we are looking of the most original
>>>> germ cell, the one from which all others can be
>>>> developed, then object-oriented activity is primary. I
>>>> think it is possible, or perhaps necessary, to agree
>>> on that.
>>>>>
>>>>> But once we are back to the development of a
>>> concrete
>>>> Psychology, we still have to deal with the fact
>>> that, for
>>>> any child to participate in human forms of
>>> object-oriented
>>>> activity, and not just the forms of object-oriented
>>>> activity that also characterise any other multi-cellular
>>>> organism, this child needs to somehow socialise into
>>> those
>>>> forms of activity. So, while I assume that any category
>>>> devised to account for human psyche needs to agree with
>>>> the initial germ cell of reflexivity that you
>>> describe, is
>>>> this germ cell initial to human concrete psychology,
>>> or is
>>>> it a pre-requisite and not yet Psychology's one?
>>>>>
>>>>> As moderator, I should stop there and let others
>>> answer
>>>> (which I hope some do).
>>>>> As a participant, I'd like to give the question a try:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Object-Oriented activity can be found to be primary in
>>>> ontogenetic development too. Even in the case of
>>> teaching
>>>> deaf-blind children, as the classical studies show, this
>>>> is only possible through *involvement* in collective
>>>> activity. So, yes, object-oriented activity is primary
>>>> over, for example, the teaching of a language (which is
>>>> only possible in and through object-oriented activity).
>>>> But then, is not the teaching, the instructional
>>> aspect of
>>>> the relation between adult and child, inherently tied to
>>>> this collective object-oriented activity? Is not this
>>>> object-oriented activity already characterised by all
>>>> those attributes that you just called 'spiritually
>>>> uplifting' in the very moment in which we describe such
>>>> activity as human? Addressivity, empathy, how do you get
>>>> collective activity without them? On this, and precisely
>>>> in an edited volume titled "The Practical Essence of
>>> Man",
>>>> Vladislav Lektorsky (2015) writes, 'it is evident in
>>> that
>>>> case that communication is included in activity and
>>> is its
>>>> essential component: without relation to another
>>>> person(s), activity is impossible' (144). Although
>>> I not
>>>> always share all of the ideas with Lektorsky, here I
>>> can't
>>>> see how he can be wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, let me summarise that I agree that the idea of
>>>> reflexivity that you discuss and, in that sense, the
>>>> category of object-oriented activity, is most
>>> primary. Let
>>>> me also note that there are other authors who have
>>>> developed similar ideas to that of reflexivity that you
>>>> discuss, including Michel Henry, who himself built on
>>>> French philosopher Maine de Biran, and for whom
>>>> affectivity is the concrete 'essence of
>>> auto-affection' (
>>> https://www.amazon.com/Incarnation-Philosophy-Studies-Phenomenology-Existential/dp/0810131269
>>> <https://www.amazon.com/Incarnation-Philosophy-Studies-Phenomenology-Existential/dp/0810131269>
>>>> )
>>>>>
>>>>> As we work towards a concrete human psychology, I
>>> wonder
>>>> whether we should be forced to choose between activity
>>>> and communication. Is not the distinction just an
>>> artefact
>>>> of a partial understanding of what it means activity and
>>>> what it means communicating. I still feel that
>>>> communication, in the sense of addressivity that
>>> Mikhailov
>>>> describes, is not a synonym for verbal activity, or for
>>>> semiotics. If the question is whether practical activity
>>>> precedes verbal activity, the answer is clear. You don't
>>>> get the latter outside of the former. But, in my perhaps
>>>> naive view, we ought to have a notion of communication
>>>> that would not reduce itself to 'verbal activity' (as in
>>>> the opposition 'practical' vs 'verbal' activity), for I
>>>> don't see how any practical activity can have any sense
>>>> (and so be achieved) for any human outside addressivity.
>>>> Unless this is a sense-less, human-less activity we are
>>>> talking about; one machines could perform on their own
>>>> without consciousness.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>
>>>>> Alfredo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: Alexander Surmava
>>> <alexander.surmava@yahoo.com
>>> <mailto:alexander.surmava@yahoo.com>
>>>> <mailto:alexander.surmava@yahoo.com
>>> <mailto:alexander.surmava@yahoo.com>>>
>>>>> Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54
>>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>; Ivan Uemlianin; Alfredo
>>>> Jornet Gil; Haydi Zulfei ; Mike Cole
>>>>> Subject: Object oriented activity and communication
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al
>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more
>>> interesting,
>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before
>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica aparté
>>> (replica
>>>> aside) :-)
>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is
>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical
>>> approach,
>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its
>>> framework
>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a
>>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the
>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism.
>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our
>>> discussions
>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the
>>>> interpretation of these concepts.
>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the
>>> principle
>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism
>>> compatible
>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is,
>>> it is
>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and
>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe
>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to
>>>> these two principles something third, say -
>>> "subjectness"?
>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and
>>> similar
>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our
>>> inquiry
>>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we
>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step.
>>> But this
>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again,
>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical
>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that
>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological
>>> theory,
>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially
>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently
>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the
>>>> interesting only for us theoretical
>>>>
>>> verbiage<https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB%EE%E2%E8%E5
>>> <https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB%EE%E2%E8%E5>>
>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical
>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions
>>> between
>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev.
>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for
>>> me too
>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and
>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central
>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego.
>>>>> Agitprop
>>>>> sticks
>>>>> in my teeth too,
>>>>> and I’d rather
>>>>> compose
>>>>> romances for you -
>>>>> more profit in it
>>>>> and more charm.
>>>>> But I
>>>>> subdued
>>>>> myself,
>>>>> setting my heel
>>>>> on the throat
>>>>> of my own song.
>>>>> Vladimir Mayakovski
>>>>>
>>>>> И мне
>>>>> Агитпроп
>>>>> в зубах навяз,
>>>>> и мне бы
>>>>> строчить
>>>>> романсы на вас —
>>>>> доходней оно
>>>>> и прелестней.
>>>>> Но я
>>>>> себя
>>>>> смирял,
>>>>> становясь
>>>>> на горло
>>>>> собственной песне.
>>>>> Владимир Маяковский
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced
>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to
>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to
>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time,
>>> literally
>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the
>>> abstract
>>>> to the concrete.
>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting
>>> questions
>>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as
>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented
>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer
>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed
>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in
>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF
>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian
>>>> Принципы теории рефлексивной
>>>>
>>> деятельности<https://www.academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8
>>> <https://www.academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8>>.
>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the
>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is
>>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in
>>>> English international journal... but for some strange
>>>> reason was not published then or later.
>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions,
>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text
>>>>
>>> https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS
>>> <https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS>.
>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to
>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the
>>> interaction
>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no
>>> case
>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two
>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach
>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my
>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should
>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious
>>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic
>>> of the
>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the
>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object
>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not
>>> dealing
>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the
>>> logic
>>>> of positing, positing of the object (логика полагания
>>>> предмета), or "organic" type of interaction in the
>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words,
>>> "positing"
>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest,
>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism
>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense
>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its
>>> active and
>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic
>>> interaction, in
>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active,
>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There
>>>> are many interesting differences between them, but
>>> let us
>>>> return to this somehow later.
>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation
>>>> work of 1988:
>>>>> “Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation
>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two
>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun
>>> taken
>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is
>>>> neither “predmet” for a plant, nor for astronomy. It
>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to
>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer)
>>>> “selecting” the sun as its predmet and “scrupulously”
>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant
>>>> leaves (with his telescope).
>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation
>>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously
>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital
>>> activity.
>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive
>>> relation,
>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not
>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated.
>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism
>>> does not
>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with
>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence.
>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not
>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be
>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the
>>> organism
>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing
>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into
>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it
>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of
>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive
>>> relation.”
>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and
>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the
>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's
>>>> "addressing" to another person.
>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered
>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to
>>> try to
>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness
>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has
>>> been and
>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology
>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and
>>> Ilyenkov.
>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If
>>> we want
>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the
>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the
>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers
>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of
>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to
>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical
>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to
>>> choose one
>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first
>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a
>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course
>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic
>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".…the
>>> human
>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single
>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the
>>>> social relations.. "
>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's
>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely
>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to
>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical
>>> psychology
>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx,
>>> then
>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely
>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with
>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of
>>> them it
>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place,
>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be
>>>> solved by ourselves.
>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this
>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two «bosses». A
>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader
>>> was AN
>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly
>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented
>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first,
>>> second
>>>> and fifth thesis "Theses On Feuerbach", whereas a
>>> group of
>>>> Leningrad psychologists, led by B.F. Lomov was
>>> inclined to
>>>> formulations of the sixth thesis. In other words,
>>>> "Muscovites" were for activity, whereas "Leningraders"
>>>> were for communication.
>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our
>>>> reference to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach is not a literal
>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our
>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a
>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the
>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered
>>> something
>>>> rather indecent.
>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of
>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also
>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory,
>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by
>>> organizing
>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was
>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was
>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of
>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of
>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a
>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader
>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in
>>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of
>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of
>>> scientific
>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in
>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the
>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters
>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's
>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE
>>>> could not reverse the situation too.
>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to
>>>> "communication" and "activity."
>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category,
>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then
>>> for us
>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will
>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can
>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including
>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that
>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented
>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication
>>> from the
>>>> latter, which is an attribute property of life. But from
>>>> communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such
>>>> spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or
>>>> object oriented activity with the greatest diligence.
>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but
>>> a fact
>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive
>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and
>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first
>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level,
>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex
>>> dialectic
>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the
>>> course
>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced.
>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external
>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals,
>>>> together and practically producing their own lives,
>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a
>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man.
>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive
>>> Activity"
>>>> communication and the affective side of life are
>>> taken not
>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of
>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as
>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it’s
>>>> REFLEXIVE side.
>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced by me in my
>>>> diploma thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a
>>>> Marxist theoretical solution to the question of the
>>>> relation of objective activity and "communication".
>>> In the
>>>> same time, reflexive object oriented activity, that is,
>>>> the active relation of the subject to the object and to
>>>> itself, is the only possible "germ cell" of the
>>> human, as,
>>>> indeed, any other, psychology.
>>>>> Формат интернет чата не самое подходящее место для
>>> того,
>>>> чтобы вводить столь фундаментальные понятия, потому тем,
>>>> кто хочет разобраться в проблеме пресловутой «клеточки»,
>>>> следует заглянуть в не слишком большой английский текст
>>>>
>>> https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS
>>> <https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS>
>>>> и прочитать его дальше первых нескольких страниц.
>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most
>>> suitable
>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts,
>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem
>>> of the
>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large
>>>> English text
>>>>
>>> https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS
>>> <https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS>
>>>> and read it to the end :-).
>>>>> Полный текст на русском ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND
>>> HUMAN
>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian Принципы теории
>>> рефлексивной
>>> деятельности<https://www.academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8
>>> <https://www.academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8>>
>>>>> Наконец, краткий текст на русском, соответствующий
>>>> английскому переводу
>>>>
>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527
>>> <https://www.avramus.com/app/download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527>
>>>> .
>>>>> Dear Alfredo, Ivan et al
>>>>> The discussion really becomes more and more
>>> interesting,
>>>> touching on the most fundamental categories. But before
>>>> proceeding to the answers, a short replica aparté
>>> (replica
>>>> aside) :-)
>>>>> Theoretical discussion can be productive only if it is
>>>> conducted in the context of a single theoretical
>>> approach,
>>>> based on the general principles accepted in its
>>> framework
>>>> and shared by the debaters. Here, on the XMCA, such a
>>>> common, unifying conception are usually considered the
>>>> theories of Vygotsky, Spinozism or even Marxism.
>>>> Meanwhile, I am afraid that the course of our
>>> discussions
>>>> reveals not just a difference, but a gap in the
>>>> interpretation of these concepts.
>>>>> For example, is semiotics compatible with the
>>> principle
>>>> of activity, is Spinoza's materialistic monism
>>> compatible
>>>> with the plurality of bases of the theory, that is,
>>> it is
>>>> possible to consider both objective activity and
>>>> communication as the "germ cell" of the theory. Or maybe
>>>> for completeness of the theory it is necessary to add to
>>>> these two principles something third, say -
>>> "subjectness"?
>>>>> I am convinced that without answering these and
>>> similar
>>>> fundamental questions at the very beginning of our
>>> inquiry
>>>> and without answering them in the most general form, we
>>>> are doomed to stumble on them at every next step.
>>> But this
>>>> leads us to another difficulty. Over and over again,
>>>> returning the conversation to the most basic theoretical
>>>> grounds, we come across the inevitable reproach that
>>>> instead of discussing a substantive psychological
>>> theory,
>>>> based on which we can practically solve socially
>>>> significant problems, let us say, create a consistently
>>>> democratic education system, we draw everyone to the
>>>> interesting only for us theoretical
>>>>
>>> verbiage<https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB%EE%E2%E8%E5
>>> <https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=188297_1_2&s1=%EF%F3%F1%F2%EE%F1%EB%EE%E2%E8%E5>>
>>>> about imposed on everyone in the teeth psychophysical
>>>> problem, and the real or imaginary contradictions
>>> between
>>>> Vygotsky and Leontiev.
>>>>> Believe me, it would be much more interesting for
>>> me too
>>>> to reflect on how to help find the path to education and
>>>> culture for the children of poor migrants from Central
>>>> Asia in Moscow or migrants from Mexico to San Diego.
>>>>> Agitprop
>>>>> sticks
>>>>> in my teeth too,
>>>>> and I’d rather
>>>>> compose
>>>>> romances for you -
>>>>> more profit in it
>>>>> and more charm.
>>>>> But I
>>>>> subdued
>>>>> myself,
>>>>> setting my heel
>>>>> on the throat
>>>>> of my own song.
>>>>> Vladimir Mayakovski
>>>>>
>>>>> И мне
>>>>> Агитпроп
>>>>> в зубах навяз,
>>>>> и мне бы
>>>>> строчить
>>>>> романсы на вас —
>>>>> доходней оно
>>>>> и прелестней.
>>>>> Но я
>>>>> себя
>>>>> смирял,
>>>>> становясь
>>>>> на горло
>>>>> собственной песне.
>>>>> Владимир Маяковский
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Among other things, such an over and over again forced
>>>> return to the very foundation makes it difficult to
>>>> understand even these very basics, for it forces us to
>>>> return to the most abstract level all the time,
>>> literally
>>>> stuck in abstractions, instead of moving from the
>>> abstract
>>>> to the concrete.
>>>>> Alfredo, you put in your post very interesting
>>> questions
>>>> about how to understand the principle of interaction as
>>>> such and about the relationship of object oriented
>>>> activity to communication. With pleasure I will answer
>>>> them. I will only note in brackets that the detailed
>>>> answers to these questions have been formulated by me in
>>>> my theoretic research almost thirty years ago ORIGIN OF
>>>> LIFE, PSYCHE AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian
>>>> Принципы теории рефлексивной
>>>>
>>> деятельности<https://www.academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8
>>> <https://www.academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8>>.
>>>> Since 2006, an article with a brief outline of the
>>>> principles of the "theory of reflexive activity" is
>>>> available in English. It was even sent in published in
>>>> English international journal... but for some strange
>>>> reason was not published then or later.
>>>>> So, it's easy for me to answer both of your questions,
>>>> especially since I can answer by quoting my old text
>>>>
>>> https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS
>>> <https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS>.
>>>>> But before I start to quote myself :-) I would like to
>>>> repeat - I completely agree with you that the
>>> interaction
>>>> of the subject and his object (predmet) should in no
>>> case
>>>> be understood as a symmetrical interaction of two
>>>> ready-made things. I'm not sure if such a false approach
>>>> should be called a "dualism," the term dualism has in my
>>>> opinion a fairly precise theoretical meaning that should
>>>> not be expanded without special need, but it is obvious
>>>> that such a logic of interaction is characteristic
>>> of the
>>>> type of interaction that Hegel and Schelling called the
>>>> mechanism and chemism. When it comes to the object
>>>> oriented activity of a living organism, we are not
>>> dealing
>>>> with the logic of abstract interaction, but with the
>>> logic
>>>> of positing, positing of the object (логика полагания
>>>> предмета), or "organic" type of interaction in the
>>>> terminology of German classics. In other words,
>>> "positing"
>>>> is also an interaction, but that is its highest,
>>>> essentially different from the mechanism and the chemism
>>>> type. Mechanism and chemism are symmetric, in the sense
>>>> that one can not in principle separate out its
>>> active and
>>>> passive side, on the contrary, in organic
>>> interaction, in
>>>> the process of positing of an object one side is active,
>>>> subjective, while the other is passive, objective. There
>>>> are many interesting differences between them, but
>>> let us
>>>> return to this somehow later.
>>>>> In the meantime, the promised quote from my graduation
>>>> work of 1988:
>>>>> “Active or predmet directed (object oriented) relation
>>>> can not be possibly comprehended as interaction of two
>>>> objects external to each other. For example, the sun
>>> taken
>>>> abstractly, out of touch with the process of life, is
>>>> neither “predmet” for a plant, nor for astronomy. It
>>>> receives a specific predmet quality exclusively due to
>>>> spontaneous activity of a green plant (or astronomer)
>>>> “selecting” the sun as its predmet and “scrupulously”
>>>> imitating its celestial movement with that of the plant
>>>> leaves (with his telescope).
>>>>> That is to say that living, active or predmet relation
>>>> as such is possible only between a living, spontaneously
>>>> acting subject and a predmet positioned by its vital
>>> activity.
>>>>> Something else again is a stimulating-reactive
>>> relation,
>>>> or a relation of irritability. Firstly, it is not
>>>> spontaneous on the side of a subject being stimulated.
>>>> Secondly, it is not productive since the organism
>>> does not
>>>> determine its predmet but has to satisfy itself with
>>>> accidental and therefore indifferent external influence.
>>>> Thirdly, the response of the organism (if only it is not
>>>> just a mechanistic action of an external cause) can be
>>>> conditioned only by abstract inner nature of the
>>> organism
>>>> itself but in no way by the shape of the external thing
>>>> indifferent to the organism incidentally coming into
>>>> contact with its living subjectivity. To put it
>>>> differently, we can find not the slightest trace of
>>>> predmet directedness within a stimulating-reactive
>>> relation.”
>>>>> Now about the object oriented activity and
>>>> communication, and it does not matter whether in the
>>>> verbal form, or in the form of a special Mikhailovsky's
>>>> "addressing" to another person.
>>>>> Which of these two categories should be considered
>>>> primary and universal, in which of them we have to
>>> try to
>>>> discern the notorious "germ cell" of human consciousness
>>>> (psyche) is essentially the main problem that has
>>> been and
>>>> remains the central problem of theoretical psychology
>>>> associated with the names of Vygotsky, Leontyev and
>>> Ilyenkov.
>>>>> To begin with, one preliminary consideration. If
>>> we want
>>>> to build scientific psychology in accordance with the
>>>> famous Marxist method of ascent from the abstract to the
>>>> concrete, whereas all three mentioned above thinkers
>>>> believed that the method of ascent, the method of
>>>> "Capital", is the only scientifically correct method, to
>>>> ignore which means to condemn one's own theoretical
>>>> discipline on vulgarity, then you will have to
>>> choose one
>>>> thing - either activity or communication. And at first
>>>> glance, the answer for any person who wants to be a
>>>> Marxist is obvious - of course, communication, of course
>>>> sociality, for it is not for nothing that the classic
>>>> coined his famous sixth thesis, stating that ".…the
>>> human
>>>> essence is no abstraction inherent in each single
>>>> individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the
>>>> social relations.. "
>>>>> And if the construction of a Marxist or, in Vygotsky's
>>>> view, which we fully share, the construction of a purely
>>>> scientific psychology consisted only in the need to
>>>> reconcile the basic propositions of theoretical
>>> psychology
>>>> with the "correct" ideological quotations from Marx,
>>> then
>>>> the task ... Then we would again be in an extremely
>>>> difficult situation, because the classics left us with
>>>> different meanings on this topic and with which of
>>> them it
>>>> is necessary to harmonize our theory in the first place,
>>>> and with which in the second, it would still have to be
>>>> solved by ourselves.
>>>>> So in the 1970s soviet psychologists divided on this
>>>> issue into two camps clustered around two «bosses». A
>>>> group of Moscow-Kharkov psychologists, whose leader was
>>>> Leontiev and to which Davydov and Ilyenkov undoubtedly
>>>> belonged, was inclined to the primacy of object oriented
>>>> activity, that is, to the formulation of the first,
>>> second
>>>> and fifth thesis of Marx's "Theses On Feuerbach",
>>> whereas
>>>> a group of Leningrad psychologists, led by Lomov was
>>>> inclined to formulations of the sixth thesis. In other
>>>> words, "Moscovites" were for "activity", whereas
>>>> "Leningraders" were for "communication".
>>>>> Here, it is necessary, however, to clarify that our
>>>> reference to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" is not a
>>> literal
>>>> reproduction of a real theoretical discussion, but our
>>>> current reconstruction of its logic. In reality, such a
>>>> direct appeal to the texts and the authority of the
>>>> classics of Marxism in the 1970s was considered
>>> something
>>>> rather indecent.
>>>>> The end of the discussion between supporters of
>>>> "activity" and supporters of "communication" is also
>>>> characteristic. Lomov won a purely bureaucratic victory,
>>>> convincing the ideological authorities that, by
>>> organizing
>>>> the international Vygotsky conference, Davydov was
>>>> dragging through dangerous Zionist ideas. Davydov was
>>>> expelled from the party and dismissed from the post of
>>>> director of the Institute of Psychology, and the dean of
>>>> Leontief's psychology department was appointed a
>>>> well-known adherent of "communication" Leningrader
>>>> Bodalev. Thus, "communication" with the useful people in
>>>> the ideological department of the Central Committee of
>>>> CPSU won a pure victory over the supporters of
>>> scientific
>>>> "activity." This concludes all meaningful discussions in
>>>> Soviet / Russian psychology. To the leadership of the
>>>> Faculty of Psychology were no longer allowed supporters
>>>> of any kind of controversial scientific ideas. Davydov's
>>>> short-term return to the Institute of Psychology of RAE
>>>> could not reverse the situation too.
>>>>> Let us return, however, to our sheep, that is, to
>>>> "communication" and "activity."
>>>>> If we want to make our choice of the initial category,
>>>> without looking back at the academic fashion, then
>>> for us
>>>> as for the materialists the choice is obvious. We will
>>>> choose the one of the two categories from which one can
>>>> derive the entire diversity of human life, including
>>>> another, the opposite category. And it is obvious that
>>>> such an initial category can only be object-oriented
>>>> activity, for it is easy to deduce communication
>>> from the
>>>> object oriented activity, which is an attribute property
>>>> of life. But from communication, "addressness", love,
>>>> empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we
>>>> will never get life or object oriented activity even
>>> with
>>>> the greatest diligence.
>>>>> And this is not an unsubstantiated assertion, but
>>> a fact
>>>> realized in a theory called the "Theory of Reflexive
>>>> Activity", which demonstrates how inner reflexivity and
>>>> the entire affective sphere associated with it is first
>>>> generated by objective activity at the most basic level,
>>>> in the evolution of life itself. Then a complex
>>> dialectic
>>>> of the relation of activity and reflexivity in the
>>> course
>>>> of the evolution of multicellular organisms is traced.
>>>>> And, finally, it demonstrates how the external
>>>> reflexivity, that is, the relations of individuals,
>>>> together and practically producing their own lives,
>>>> assumes a specifically human character, being a
>>>> reflexivity, mediating the joint-tool activity of man.
>>>>> We emphasize that in the "Theory of Reflexive
>>> Activity"
>>>> communication and the affective side of life are
>>> taken not
>>>> as initial and independent concepts, of the origin of
>>>> which no materialist can say anything meaningful, but as
>>>> necessarily inherent to object oriented activity it’s
>>>> REFLEXIVE side.
>>>>> The concept of reflexivity was introduced in my
>>> diploma
>>>> thesis in 1988 and, it seems to me, it is a Marxist
>>>> theoretical solution to the question of the relation of
>>>> objective activity and "communication". In the same
>>> time,
>>>> reflexive object oriented activity, that is, the active
>>>> relation of the subject to the object and to itself, is
>>>> the only possible "germ cell" of the human, as, indeed,
>>>> any other, psychology.
>>>>> The format of the Internet chat is not the most
>>> suitable
>>>> place for introducing such fundamental concepts,
>>>> therefore, those who want to understand the problem
>>> of the
>>>> notorious "germ cell" should look into not too large
>>>> English text
>>>>
>>> https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS
>>> <https://www.academia.edu/33954148/LIFE_PSYCHE_CONSCIOUSNESS>
>>>> and read it to the end :-).
>>>>> The full Russian text: ORIGIN OF LIFE, PSYCHE AND
>>> HUMAN
>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS.docx In Russian Принципы теории
>>> рефлексивной
>>> деятельности<https://www.academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8
>>> <https://www.academia.edu/34223109/ORIGIN_OF_LIFE_PSYCHE_AND_HUMAN_CONSCIOUSNESS.docx_In_Russian_%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%8B_%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%84%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8>>
>>>>> Finally short Russian text which corresponds to short
>>>> English one
>>>>
>>> https://www.avramus.com/app/download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527
>>> <https://www.avramus.com/app/download/5446025763/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86+%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B.doc?t=1486819527>.
>>>>> Sasha
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list