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

[Alfredo Jornet Gil]

Dear Sasha, all,


apologies for late response, as we've had some health issues at home that fortunately are now dissipating but which have limited participation anywhere else than home life.


The real need of democratic pedagogy. That sounds like a concrete aspect to begin moving on to what we had hoped at the beginning of this conversation: how is this all gonna be of practical (real) relevance to us and not only armchair discussion. So, in what sense is this 'real,' and is this a 'need'? (I am not addressing Sasha alone, I am addressing any and everyone)


Alfredo



________________________________
From: Alexander Surmava <alexander.surmava@yahoo.com>
Sent: 21 October 2017 13:36
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Mike Cole; Alfredo Jornet Gil; ivan-dgf; Martin John Packer; ‪Haydi ‪Zulfei‬‬
Subject: Отв: [Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented activity and communication

Dear Martin,
I think that if we're going to discuss the method of Marx, then it is better to do it discussing his most mature work. That is evidently "Das Kapital" and Ilyenkov's monograph "Dialectics of the abstract and concrete in theoretical thinking". I am aware that there is a point of view that the position of Marx as a humanist was adequately presented in Gründrisse, whereas the humanistic core of Marx's theory was allegedly lost in “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 the discussion of this topic would take us too far from our psychological themes. I think 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 account my not young age, it seems to me that at least for me, it's time to move on from the discussion of the method to the discussion of the subject, from the preparation to thinking, to the thinking as such. Especially because the Method can not be studied before and regardless of the study of the very subject. Perhaps this seems paradoxical, but it is a paradox only for those who are not familiar with the dialectic of Spinoza and Marx.

Meanwhile, instead of discussing the question - what is activity, or what is the psyche - we continue to carry water in a sieve, discussing the singular or plural of the term activity. Without a doubt, this topic is very useful for translators from Russian (or German) language to English, but theoretically it is not very informative. And besides, we are convinced that Andy Blunden completely exhausted this topic a few years ago.

Much more interesting would be to discuss the question: what is the justification to declare 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 idealistic psychology. “The activity (or activities) of consciousness”, “the activity (or activities) of mental functions”, “speech activity (or activities)”, the concrete activities of the personality”- all this has nothing to do with object-oriented activity, with Spinoza and Marx.

It seems to me that our main mistake is that we are discussing the subtleties of understanding the categories of activity by Vygotsky and Leontyev, whereas we need something different. It is necessary to try to formulate OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of the activity, proceeding from THE REAL NEED OF THE PRACTICE OF DEMOCRATIC PEDAGOGY.
It is impossible to understand activity based on Vygotsky's ideas, because there was no such theoretical category in his theoretical system of views. AN Leontiev introduces a category of object-oriented activity into psychology, but his theory is of little use for solving practical problems too, for saying “A”, Leontyev never said “B”. Having proposed the principle of activity as the universal basis of the psychological theory, its germ cell AN Leontiev did not go further failing to concretize this correctly chosen abstract category.
Once again, from the hobby group<https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?t=3534254_1_2&s1=%EA%F0%F3%E6%EE%EA> of lovers of Vygotsky, with his "Сultural-Рistorical Psychology" and AN Leontyev with his "Psychological Theory of Activity" we all have to become community of researchers developing fundamentally new approaches to education, based on dialectical, revolutionary method of Marx.
For the realization of this dream, it is necessary to begin not so much - to learn to listen 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><mailto: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