Re: [xmca] DIALECTICAL PSYCHOLOGY SECTION, GROUPE and SEMINAR

I guessed you did not use it in the way Oxford defines it Andy, and
that's why I was curious to know what people you were refering to, I
still don't, especially in this context.
On 4/28/08, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> Oh I'm sorry, Elinami. I was trying to probe Sasha's view without using or
> referring to the notion of "primitive." It appears I failed. I did not know
> of the history of the word "tribal." Of course I do not share Oxford's idea
> of people guided by instincts - My God! Is that book really still in print
> with that rubbish! The implication of my probing was that all adult language
> users use and always have used, genuine concepts.
>
> What word should I have used. In this particular context my meaning was
> intentionally vague, but are there words which have more definite meanings?
> Or is the conventional wisdom that there are no categorical distinctions
> possible in this area?
>
> Andy
> Elinami Swai wrote:
> >
> > I understand the usage of 'subject' David, but my curiosity was piqued
> > to the use of 'tribal' in xmca. 'Tribal' as a description of certain
> > people has a meaning that goes far in history, and has been contested
> > for years. My curiosity was piqued to see it at Xmca. In Advanced
> > Oxford Learners Dictionary, 'tribal people' are 'people belonging to
> > primitive societies, still guided by primordial instincts.' Are these
> > people you were refering to Andy? Just curious.
> >
> > Elinami.
> >
> > On 4/28/08, David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I don't understand, Elinami. How is it possible to be a language user
> and NOT use concepts like "subject", "verb", "speaker", "grammar" etc.? Even
> if you say that concept use has to be conscious, isn't the self itself a
> concept?
> > >
> > > David Kellogg
> > > Seoul National University of Education
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Elinami Swai <swaiev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I cannot resist Andy, who are these tribal people?
> > > Elinami.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/27/08, Andy Blunden wrote:
> > > > Sasha,
> > > > I just wanted to probe you little on this question of concept
> (Begriff) vs
> > > > "abstract general" (or complex or "representation", etc).
> > > >
> > > > It seems to me that all of us, unless we have a psychiatric problem
> or brain
> > > > damage or something serious, by the time we become adults operate
> with
> > > > concepts. I notice that most theorists do not understand well what a
> concept
> > > > is and even the average Nobel Prize Winner cannot distinguish clearly
> > > > between an abstract general notion and a genuine concept. But
> nonetheless we
> > > > all use genuine concepts. Difficulty in theoretically making this
> > > > distinction explicit is a matter really of whether you have been
> exposed to
> > > > Hegelian ideas or Marx, Vygotsky, or other philosophy which
> incorporates
> > > > these insights. Tribal people for example, just as much as Logical
> > > > Positivist philosophers, use concepts. Is that your understanding as
> well?
> > > >
> > > > Andy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Martin Packer wrote:
> > > > > ------ Forwarded Message
> > > > > From: Alexander Surmava
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:01:03 +0400
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > To: 'Martin Packer'
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Cc: Mike Cole
> > > > > Subject: RE: Life, psyche, consciousness.doc
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Martin,
> > > > > You write:
> > > > > To my reading, Ilyenkov's concept of ideality, based on the notion
> of the
> > > > > thinking-body, is not the same as suggesting that artifacts have a
> > > > cultural
> > > > > meaning. To me, this risks reintroducing a dualism between matter
> and
> > > > > meaning. It is a short step, to my view mistaken, to the belief
> that the
> > > > > natural sciences study matter, while the social sciences study
> meaning. It
> > > > > also leads one to think that each artifact has a single meaning.
> Sasha,
> > > > when
> > > > > you said that the child really understands "the meaning" of the
> knife, I'm
> > > > > sure you would agree that a child cannot grasp the complexity of
> the
> > > > > relations that a single artifact like a knife has with society as a
> whole.
> > > > > Nor can a peasant understand the full complexity of the social
> world in
> > > > > which they are living, even though they have great practical
> wisdom.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I entirely share your idea that ?Ilyenkov's concept of ideality,
> based on
> > > > > the notion of the thinking-body, is not the same as suggesting that
> > > > > artifacts have a cultural meaning? The latter is something banal
> and
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > doesna;t need the first. No one of semiotics will disagree with the
> > > > >
> > > > statement
> > > >
> > > > > that each artifact has some ?cultural meaning? while all of them
> have
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > hardly ever heard the very concept of ?thinking body?and evidently
> dona;t
> > > > > need in this notion.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > As well we never declare something like the statement ?that the
> natural
> > > > > sciences study matter, while the social sciences study meaning?
> > > > > As for a child with a knife we do insist that to have a real
> > > > understanding,
> > > > > real idea of knife a child needs only to be taught by adult how to
> use it
> > > > in
> > > > > historically developed cultural manner. The knife is a tool which
> helps
> > > > > humans to cut something and a child who practically grasps this
> mode of
> > > > > operation and adequately utilizes the knife has a valid idea of
> knife. All
> > > > > complexities ?of the relations that a single artifact like a knife
> has
> > > > with
> > > > > society as a whole?can add nothing to this plain fact. The role of
> > > > society
> > > > > consists in elaborating the artifact and in teaching new
> generations the
> > > > way
> > > > > to utilize it.
> > > > > The knife is something basically simple. The absolute majority of
> mankind,
> > > > > those who use knifes in their everyday life needs and have only
> practical
> > > > > notion of knives. On the contrary something that pretends to be a
> > > > > ?scientific notion?of knife is something ridiculous and scholastic.
> > > > > In exactly the same way illiterate, but experienced peasant has
> real,
> > > > > practical notion say of melon, while a schoolboy with all his
> ?scientific
> > > > > definitions?is far from real comprehension of it. He can
> successfully eat
> > > > > melon but he hardly can plant it. And here just as in previous case
> ?the
> > > > > full complexity of the social world in which they are living?has
> nothing
> > > > to
> > > > > do with the idea of melon.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Surely there are objects which cana;t be grasped practically by a
> single
> > > > > person. Thus for example an idea of agriculture as a socially and
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > historically developed system of relations which combines
> individual
> > > > forces
> > > > > of people over the cooperative process of production and
> distribution
> > >
> > >
> > > > cana;t be realized in abstract practical manner. Such attempts can be
> > > > resulted in a
> > > >
> > > > > way similar to famous fable about three blind and an elephant.
> > > > > The same we can say about such an object as atom or nuclear
> particle. A
> > > > > single person never deals practically with such objects. Only a
> > > > theoretical
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > culture ?which is essentially a special type of cooperative practice
> ?lt;br>> can
> > > > > grasp the notion of such objects.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Explaining all this I meet a great difficultness with the lack of
> proper
> > > > > English terminology (or, probably, my poor knowledge of English).
> In
> > > > German
> > > > > and in Russian there is a clear distinction between two notions,
> and two
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > terms: Begriff = pona;atie, and Vorstellung = predstavlenije.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The highest form in development of thinking is obviously pona;atie
> > >
> > >
> > > > (Begriff).
> > > >
> > > > > And in the same time it is the universal form of thinking. While
> > > > > predstavlenije (Vorstellung) is subordinated notion. The obscheje
> > > > (general)
> > > > > predstavlenije is understood in dialectical culture as a meaning of
> word,
> > > > > like something that enables us to distinguish among the known and
> fixed in
> > > > > the matter of language culture objects. But one can have
> predsatavlenije
> > > > > without having understanding of the essence of the object.
> > > > > Thus the brilliant illustration of such divergence of two forms of
> > > > thinking
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > (Predstavlenija and Pona;atia) are so called ?artificial
> notions?from
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Vygotsky-Sakharova;s experiments, as well as many similar
> constructions
> > >
> > >
> > > > from
> > > >
> > > > > psychological theory. The artificial notion is an empty notion,
> which is
> > > > > something that cannot be understood not because their utmost
> complexity
> > > > but
> > > > > because their utmost vacancy. Logically as ?artifcial notion?we
> have an
> > > > > evident example of general definition (obshchego predstavlenija),
> not
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > understanding (ne pona;atie). So it corresponds not with dialectic
> logic
> > > > >
> > > > both
> > > >
> > > > > in its Hegel and Marxist form, but with formal logic, with logic of
> John
> > > > > Locke.
> > > > > And this distinction is not something academically formal but the
> core
> > > > > distinction for dialectically thinking researcher. Thus Davydov
> based all
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > his theory of developmental instruction just on this distinction.
> (Ia;m
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > going
> > > > > to ask Peter Moxhay ?the translator of Davidova;s latest book - how
> he
> > >
> > >
> > > > cope
> > > >
> > > > > the problem with insufficiency of English terminology in this
> case.)
> > > > > As for the idea of ?thinking body?it is equal to basically new and
> in
> > > > the
> > > > > same time genuine Marxist and Spinozian idea of thinking as not
> banal
> > > > > manipulation with words and other conventional signs, but as a
> special way
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > of acting of one (active or ?thinking?body) according to the shape
> of the
> > > > > other body, taken in the moment of its live realization.
> > > > > All this was fundamentally explored in Ilyenkova;s works and I agree
> with
> > > > >
> > > > you
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > that the joint rereading of this works would be extremely useful
> for all
> > > > of
> > > > > us as a step to rethinking the traditional understanding of CHAT.
> > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > >
> > > > > Sasha
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > xmca mailing list
> > > > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/ +61 3 9380 9435 Skype
> andy.blunden
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > xmca mailing list
> > > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dr. Elinami Swai
> > > Womens' and Gender Studies
> > > University Hall 4220-A
> > > The University of Toledo
> > > Toledo, OH, 43606
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > xmca mailing list
> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > >
> > > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try
> it now.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > xmca mailing list
> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/ +61 3 9380 9435 Skype andy.blunden
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>

-- 
Dr. Elinami Swai
Womens' and Gender Studies
University Hall 4220-A
The University of Toledo
Toledo, OH, 43606
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca