[Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented activity and communication
Haydi Zulfei
haydizulfei@rocketmail.com
Mon Oct 16 06:39:52 PDT 2017
Dear Alfredo, all,
Excuse me if I ask you to go to the body of the message!
From: Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
To: mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>; EXtended Mind Culture Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>; Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, 15 October 2017, 5:13:39
Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented activity and communication
Dear Haydi, all, I'd like to comment on the secondpart (paragraph) of your post, for it mentions 'communication', which we'vebeen discussing in later posts. For it keeps looking as if we were having tochoose between activity or communication, or as if the opposition betweenactivity and communication was to be solved by taking one side to win. Sashawas clear: when the question concerns which category is most primary so thatthe one can be derived from the other, then we can't but agree with him that'from communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such spirituallyuplifting plots, we will not get life or object oriented activity with thegreatest diligence'. **First I should say that it’s notmy right to interpret Sasha’s ideas. You said others are silent and Itried to have my turn.One point I’d like to refer to isthat our push towards activity , in fact , was a reaction. There were all sortsof assaults on Leontiev and followers of activity theory to the point Irepeatedly asked our folk to pay attention to the very term CHAT.Thanks moderators nowadays more andconsiderable tolerance is observed.Then why “we can’t but agree …” Onthis I think we should consider Sasha’s point of departure , that is ,substance , attributes and modes. And the identity of being and thinking whichcomes to him through Ilyenko to Spinoza. This has its history now revealed byofficial documents part of which was interpreted by David Bakhurst as keyspeaker to the Conference. I’m reading them in Google’s translation which isnow fairly understandable. I might send you a copy. No! Nowadays we don’t have to choosebetween the two or talk prevalingly or dominantly about the essentiallyprecedence of the one over the other.With CHAT I think nowadays we shouldaccept that cultural historical theory is relevant , activity theory isrelevant , too. We cannot deny either the role of speech in tackling lifeaffairs or what is quite relevant but essentially prior to it , that is ,practical activity. Yet, in a previous post I wasraising the problem (which may be only my problem and so not really a realproblem) that I cannot think of any object-oriented (reflexive) activity thatitself is not constituted in and through a communicative act. Of course, if youthink of communicative acts as only developed human speech, as you seem tosuggest in your mentions of 'wording' and 'structure sentence', then thesolution is clear: the latter are only derivative. You mention word meaning asa unit of consciousness as problematic as well. All three mentions seemed to besubsumed under the rubric: it is not communication, but activity! **I understand you using “communicativeact” but it’s not always the case. Especially when a great respectable ladysays “I take culture as action”. Here usually and I can say in the majority of caseswe use culture as spiritual culture not necessarily also mechanical technologicalmaterial culture. Therefore for me “enculturation” could be an action butculture not. I remember hopefully correctly thatLeontiev junior as well as Akhutina have to talk of action act for this reason.My reason is : you talk to act not that you talk and they you go sleep foractions to take place in your dreaming. “…that itself is not constituted inand through a communicative act.” Maybe I’m too naïve . I will not deny it. Don’tyou want to go further than talk to reach action. Something higher than thePerformance being discussed on the other thread? Let’s not forget dialectics ifwe believe in it. Here I’d like to faithfully quote this recent Andy’s “processes*affecting* other processes”. But : Constituted in—that is , according to thedictionary : being founded , being invented , being made , being incorporated ,being synthesized , being agglutinated , being comprised , formed ,established.As I’m concerned : No , No to the “underthe rubric: it is not communication, but activity!” whatever.But what about you sticking to the “constitutedin” with the synonyms I mentioned?On the one hand you say you have toaccept that essentially and historically , speech WAS brought up in the bosomof activity ; on the other hand , you talk of activity being formed andinvented , come into being in the bosom of speech. If this is so , I couldreject dialogic lingual planning as realized action. I said lots ofnegotiations and lingual planning are on the agenda , underway and in progressby sublimed skilled erudite speakers worldwide but for their realization ,concretization , crystallization , embodiment , something other is needed :action. The calamity was not that Bush talked of non-existent mass destruction arsenalbut that ‘actual bombs fell down on innocent humans'. Not that he timed arrivalin Bagdad but that the day after Bagdad had got to be empty of defenders andthe aftermath is not that speeches got archived but that a country and a regionburnt in ashes. It’s not the case that always a talk is preceded by anothertalk but that on many occasions a talk is the outcome of an action previously carried out whetherominous or blessed. Shortly , nowadays neither is aderivative to another. Both work relationally. And of course, if we insist onassuming we mean communicating stripped from activity, or somehow opposed toit, then all that makes sense. But a whole different thing would be to think ofcommunicative acts as synonymous with 'acting in a manner adequate to anobject', which is nothing other than the Spinozist definition ofobject-orientedness and of Sasha's reflexive activity. And that is the way thatI think other non-strictly marxist thinkers, like Gregory Bateson, wereconceiving their way to a monist theory of mind as nature. **Accepting ‘relationally’ means not‘opposed to it’ then you’re welcome ! But ‘stripped from activity’ soundsdualistic! I won’t mean it in isolation of or detached from activity but not alsocrowning it with giving birth (delivery) to let alone bringing up activity inits bosom , again returning to ‘constituted in’. Reason : the fetus might gonil! Action evaporated! Thinking retained for novel talks.
We won’t cut off the umbilical cord.But if you are not able to initiate activity in pursuit of your talk , notinghappens. Some numb and deaf artists might take on. Pantomime might work! I don’tknow how far Marx can go with Spinoza but if you depict such a situation , thatis , in the absence of action , talk can take the place of , I should say it’sthe whole thinking body who possesses the capacity and potentiality to find itsway through the complicated contours of other bodies. And I should say I'm not satisfied or clarified with this geometrical metaphor. I'm more familiar with Leontiev's and Ilyenko's metaphors. But now I'm not ready for details.You now and then use theterm ‘experience’ , then please try not to dissipate it at least. No insistenceNo replacement. Thinking/communicating are within material extended bodies. Howcan we go just with our thinking/communicating? Accepting just one attribute ofthe one substance? If machines do , they’ll be crumbled in non-spontaneity!! To appropriately respond to novel situations.
Now, this may sound like a forcedshift in language, in the words we'd like to use to refer to the sameobject-orientedness; why call something communication when reflexive activitymay be a better term for it? In fact, a clear and very convincing advantage ofthe latter term is that it has been developed through a critique to a conceptupon which some of the deepest problems of dualism in psychology have beengrounded: irritability. But the very latter notion and in fact the verystimulus - response scheme can perfectly be and have been used as models fortheories of communication. **You have a presupposition thatSasha and I are the same person. To what extent we can agree on matters ofdispute is not yet achieved. I hope he continues with his ideas so that both ofus could get enlightened with details. I’m now talking to you on what have beenposed here as for the collective. Communication has been growing (not that ithas been thrown in) up to this point of grandeur and potency and cruciality irreversible.It’s at the service of Life. I cannot say world without speech can go the wayis now going or even is possible for it to prevent a halt ; you cannot claim oreven imagine world without activity whether running in capitalist shape orturning for a new shape. Prejudices cannot make for rationality. Disputes cango on with the question of speech’s historicity and essentiality , primacy ,etc. More than that now is not helpful. You’d better not accuse of usconfirming the S==>Roption. Just for sake of reference , I tell you Sasha has lots of ideas inrelation to the principle of reflexive activity and in relation to the way hedefended his thesis. I’ve read all these in Google translation you admit notenough to issue judgments on such complex matters. Sasha also knows about that.The best way for all of us is to let him go with his ideas , a matter lackingback in our history. I just can say stimulus response is short of one pole ,that is , thinking. I am going to suggest two possibleadvantages of having the word communication (or, to use Sasha's formulationother 'spiritually uplifting' terms such as Mikhailov's adressivity) as a'synonym' (if this terminology can be employed) rather than as a derivativecategory with respect to object-orientedness; and I am going to do so with thehonest confusion that I am very unsure this can work (but hey, it is onlyputting myself at risk of being completely wrong that I can hope to growright). The first would be that we may then be able to stop quarrelling aboutcommunication versus activity and instead force ourselves making a choicebetween pursuing a Spinozist monist dialetical psychology, or a dualist one,for it would be this, and not a real division between practical activity andcommunicative activity, what needed to be discerned. **It’s long I’ve read Mikhailov. Notime to go to it right now. But the short piece you quoted in isolationtriggered stunning in me. Communication on one hand , reciprocity of real andideal on the other hand?? Related butdistinct? Or radically different , that is , antinomy , contradiction? Nowempty-minded! I use communication quite freely and I link it to the general attributeof thinking capacity and whatever you’re saying here and said above of Sasha.No problem. You’re right that you cannot. Because it’s not a matter ofindividuals or collectives. It’s global. Please don’t risk your honesty forsuch matters. As I said things have been going on on much better basis thanbefore. It’s brilliantly hopeful and I think enough to make other great leaps.I have good reasons for this which I cannot express explicitly. Yes , NoDivision! The second advantage may be that, inthat case, we could try revising rather than dismissing Vygotsky's legacy inthe Spinozist terms that he never had the time to pursue himself. For then manyof the psychologist's brilliant ideas about speech and development that so manyof us find helpful when we deal with actual problems of psychologicaldevelopment (as educators, as researchers, as workers, as members oforganisations), could be redefined so as to be consistent with reflexiveactivity without leading to problematic scissions between organic life andcultural life. **In a glance , one might think whatis it we are talking about! Is that of our business to make such improvements orconcessions. But as we remember the history of this forum and what it has doneto reach this reverence and standpoint , we find ourselves being convinced thatsuch an enterprise is possible. And I should add that I feel myselfashamed for such lengthy response as though it were an interview with a personof qualification. I wonder why our qualified persons should not give theirviews! Hoping that this gets us closerrather than further apart, **Things have so far gone in thedirection of Great Hopes!! Warmest thanks! Haydi Alfredo P.S. No time patience to proofread. Apologies with likelyerrors/mistakes.I had to write first in word format. As I don’t have my ownposts I hope the transfer would not damage the sent version.
Dear Haydi, all,
I'd like to comment on the second part (paragraph) of your post, for it mentions 'communication', which we've been discussing in later posts. For it keeps looking as if we were having to choose between activity or communication, or as if the opposition between activity and communication was to be solved by taking one side to win. Sasha was clear: when the question concerns which category is most primary so that the one can be derived from the other, then we can't but agree with him that 'from communication, addressness, love, empathy and other such spiritually uplifting plots, we will not get life or object oriented activity with the greatest diligence'.
Yet, in a previous post I was raising the problem (which may be only my problem and so not really a real problem) that I cannot think of any object-oriented (reflexive) activity that itself is not constituted in and through a communicative act. Of course, if you think of communicative acts as only developed human speech, as you seem to suggest in your mentions of 'wording' and 'structure sentence', then the solution is clear: the latter are only derivative. You mention word meaning as a unit of consciousness as problematic as well. All three mentions seemed to be subsumed under the rubric: it is not communication, but activity!
And of course, if we insist on assuming we mean communicating stripped from activity, or somehow opposed to it, then all that makes sense. But a whole different thing would be to think of communicative acts as synonymous with 'acting in a manner adequate to an object', which is nothing other than the Spinozist definition of object-orientedness and of Sasha's reflexive activity. And that is the way that I think other non-strictly marxist thinkers, like Gregory Bateson, were conceiving their way to a monist theory of mind as nature.
Now, this may sound like a forced shift in language, in the words we'd like to use to refer to the same object-orientedness; why call something communication when reflexive activity may be a better term for it? In fact, a clear and very convincing advantage of the later term is that it has been developed through a critique to a concept upon which some of the deepest problems of dualism in psychology have been grounded: irritability. But the very later notion and in fact the very stimulus - response scheme can perfectly be and have been used as model for theories of communication.
I am going to suggest two possible advantages of having the word communication (or, to use Sasha's formulation other 'spiritually uplifting' terms such as Mikhailov's adressivity) as a 'synonym' (if this terminology can be employed) rather than as a derivative category with respect to object-orientedness; and I am going to do so with the honest confusion that I am very unsure this can work (but hey, it is only putting myself at risk of being completely wrong that I can hope to grow right). The first would be that we may then be able to stop quarrelling about communication versus activity and instead force ourselves making a choice between pursuing a Spinozist monist dialetical psychology, or a dualist one, for it would be this, and not a real division between practical activity and communicative activity, what needed to be discerned.
The second advantage may be that, in that case, we could try revising rather than dismissing Vygotsky's legacy in the Spinozist terms that he never had the time to pursue himself. For then many of the psychologist's brilliant ideas about speech and development that so many of us find helpful when we deal with actual problems of psychological development (as educators, as researchers, as workers, as members of organisations), could be redefined so as to be consistent with reflexive activity without leading to problematic scissions between organic life and cultural life.
Hoping that this gets us closer rather than further apart,
Alfredo
________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>
Sent: 15 October 2017 00:24
To: mike cole; EXtended Mind Culture Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented activity and communication
Dear Mike,
Giving thanks to a scholar and a philosopher and an activist for his concreteness and clarifications is crucially appreciated. But alas! you apparently forgot ours and also dear Andy's discussion over Wholes , Parts , and Moments. He personally provided us with examples from Hegel to the effect that considering wholes , they convert Parts into Moments. Then , he's here again faced with the same problem. Theorization in Hegelianism (his most valuable contribution) does not begin with the individual case in isolation which phenomenologically speaking (in contemplation) seems to be concrete (your cause for appraisal) . Hegel says this way Essence is not obtained because one instance is considered detached from all relations and its subservience to the service of the Whole. Each individual case (as abstract) is particular in some feature/s. And these particulars are essential. With other particulars in other individuals they are related actively to make the Whole. In narrower sense , this whole could be General Life Activity as the Unit of Life itself. Leontiev is not satisfied with theory only , that is , with category and concept only therefore , following Marx and quite contrary to Hegel , he puts Hegel again on his feet (not that the firmament to that time did put "idea" on the throne people walking (in fact thinking) on their heads but to put them again headstand thinking and acting with all their bodies and organs and tools and not just with their brains. Then taking all options in translation even that of a Machine into consideration it does not seem to exist any contradiction between Leontiev's use of Activity now Activities or a series or cycles of activities thereafter. These activities are those arising from the properties of versatile objects in turn arising from versatile motives in turn arising from versatile needs in order of priority of hierarchies. And I think Leontiev by broader sense means associating individual activities as moments with the broadest idea of the Monistic Substantial Modes or States in Philosophical terms. That is , when Wholes in their turn integrate and are dissolved into Monism of Substance.
Sasha rejecting double psyches believing psyche (thinking identical to being--extension comprising one Substance) is already there with the organism actively and spontaneously and quite arbitrarily on its own , positioning its due object and moving along its contours and its shape and form thusly allocating psyche to itself , rejects arousal of psyche in evolution as leaps and bounds (accumulation of quantity leading to mutation as novel quality). Such reasoning goes word for word with Spinoza's ideas in Ethics. Thus we are dealing with a huge gap between meaning of word as the unit of analysis of consciousness , now apparently ascending to "wording" and "structure of sentence" (Linguistic Configuration) further "communication" as something indispensable and necessary and inevitable to the realization of life affairs.
Best
Haydi
From: mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
To: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Cc: Alexander Surmava <alexander.surmava@yahoo.com>; ivan-dgf <ivan-dgf@migmail.ru>; Ivan Uemlianin <ivan@llaisdy.com>; Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, 14 October 2017, 4:06:50
Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented activity and communication
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> 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
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> 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
> 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
> )
> >
> >
> > 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>>
> > Sent: 30 September 2017 01:54
> > To: 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>
> 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> .
> 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.
> > 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
> 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
> 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>
> > 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
> .
> > 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>
> 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> .
> 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.
> > 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
> 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>
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Sasha
> >
> >
> >
>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list