[Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented activity and communication
Martin John Packer
mpacker@uniandes.edu.co
Sat Oct 14 10:05:19 PDT 2017
Translation courtesy of my friend Google, Andy.
I am confused: which is the Progress Publishers translation? You seem to have posted two.
Martin
> On Oct 13, 2017, at 9:34 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
> 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