[Xmca-l] Отв: Re: Отв: Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented activity and communication

[Alexander Surmava]

Dear Martin,

I think that if we're going to discuss the method ofMarx, then it is better to do it discussing his most mature work. That is evidently"Das Kapital" and Ilyenkov's monograph "Dialectics of theabstract and concrete in theoretical thinking". I am aware that there is apoint of view that the position of Marx as a humanist was adequately presentedin Gründrisse, whereas the humanistic core of Marx's theory was allegedly lostin “Das Kapital”. Accordingly, Marxism is better to study with the help of Gründrisse,and not with the help of “Das Kapital”. Along with Ilyenkov I do not share this view.

I'm afraid that thediscussion of this topic would take us too far from our psychological themes. Ithink that we should not get stuck in discussing the order of"steps", but immediately put our foot on the first "step"so that after that try to rise from it to the second, and so on ...

 Taking into accountmy not young age, it seems to me that at least for me, it's time to move onfrom the discussion of the method to the discussion of the subject, from thepreparation to thinking, to the thinking as such. Especially because the Methodcan not be studied before and regardless of the study of the very subject. Perhapsthis seems paradoxical, but it is a paradox only for those who are not familiarwith the dialectic of Spinoza and Marx.

 Meanwhile, insteadof discussing the question - what is activity, or what is the psyche - wecontinue to carry water in a sieve, discussing the singular or plural of theterm activity. Without a doubt, this topic is very useful for translators fromRussian (or German) language to English, but theoretically it is not veryinformative. And besides, we are convinced that Andy Blunden completelyexhausted this topic a few years ago.

 Much moreinteresting would be to discuss the question: what is the justification todeclare Vygotsky the founder of activity theory. Where, in any of his works,Vygotsky introduces the concept of activity, not just uses the term «activity»in the theoretical contexts in which it is used habitually by idealisticpsychology. “The activity (or activities) of consciousness”, “the activity (oractivities) of mental functions”, “speech activity (or activities)”, the concreteactivities of the personality”- all this has nothing to do with object-orientedactivity, with Spinoza and Marx.

 It seems to methat our main mistake is that we are discussing the subtleties of understandingthe categories of activity by Vygotsky and Leontyev, whereas we need somethingdifferent. It is necessary to try to formulate OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of theactivity, proceeding from THE REAL NEED OF THE PRACTICE OF DEMOCRATIC PEDAGOGY.

It is impossibleto understand activity based on Vygotsky's ideas, because there was no suchtheoretical category in his theoretical system of views. AN Leontiev introducesa category of object-oriented activity into psychology, but his theory is oflittle use for solving practical problems too, for saying “A”, Leontyev neversaid “B”. Having proposed the principle of activity as the universal basis ofthe psychological theory, its germ cell AN Leontiev did not go further failingto concretize this correctly chosen abstract category.

Once again, fromthe hobby groupof lovers of Vygotsky, with his "Сultural-Рistorical Psychology" andAN Leontyev with his "Psychological Theory of Activity" we all haveto become community of researchers developing fundamentally new approaches toeducation, based on dialectical, revolutionary method of Marx.

For therealization of this dream, it is necessary to begin not so much - to learn tolisten to each other... :-)

Sincerely,

Sasha



      От: Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
 Кому: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> 
 Отправлено: пятница, 20 октября 2017 3:08
 Тема: [Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented activity and communication
   
Right, Marx was himself well aware of this difference. My point is that we have begin to talk about “the start” of Marx’s analysis, and about its “stages,” but these should not be equated with the order of the treatment in Capital.

Martin




On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm

  Of course the method of presentation must differ in form
  from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the
  material in detail, to analyse its different forms of
  development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only
  after this work is done, can the actual movement be
  adequately described. If this is done successfully, if
  the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as
  in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a
  mere a priori construction.

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote:
Seems to me that if we’re going to talk about the details of Marx’s analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. The two have virtually opposite organizations; it’s clear that the order of presentation in Capital was not the order of analysis.

Martin