[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] The strange situation



Thank you VERY much for this, David. You have just completely re- oriented me to Ch6sect6 - I feel like I woke up and turned a light on and discovered I had only been getting 1/3 of it, and now I am getting 2/3 of that difficult and fascinating section. This was extremely helpful. I am finding that the more I set aside what I thought I knew about concept formation from Ch5, the more I understand Ch6.
What is your take on the relationship between the pseudoconcept of Ch5  
and the preconcept of Ch6?
- Steve




On Mar 24, 2010, at 10:02 PM, David Kellogg wrote:

Andy, Steve:

Take a look at these. The translations are my own but the page numbers suggest the corresponding bits in your Minick translation.
“We have first of all succeeded in discovering that generality  
(differences in generality) does not coincide with the structure of  
generalization and its different stages such as we found them in our  
experimental study on the formation of concepts: syncretic images,  
complexes, preconcepts, and concepts. (roughly, p. 225 in your  
Minick)”
You can see from this that "preconcepts" is NOT a general term  
including syncretisms, complexes any more than "rose" is a general  
term including daisies and daffodils.
“In the first place, concepts of different generality are possible  
in a same generalization structure. For example, in the structure of  
concepts by complexes it is possible for concepts of different  
levels of generality to exist: flower, and rose. In truth, we must  
state a reservation from the very outset, that is to say that the  
relationship of generalization ”flower-rose” will be different in  
each structure of generalization, for example, different in the  
structure of complexes from in the structure of preconcepts.” (225)
We can see from this that LSV does NOT consider a preconcept to be a  
complex.
“Thanks to the analysis of the real concepts of the child, we have  
been able to study some less well-known properties of syncretic  
formations, complexes, and preconcepts and to establish what in each  
of these spheres of thinking is shown to be different in the  
relationship with the object as well as the apprehension of the  
object by thought, that is to say, how the two fundamental elements  
which characterize concepts are revealed to be different from one  
stage to another.” (228)
Once again, "preconcepts" are not the preconceptual functional  
equivalents of concepts (that is, they are not a hypernym for  
syncretic heaps and complexes). But here Vygotsky suggests that  
there are two processes and not one at work in concept formation.
One is indeed a form of activity: it's a relationship with the  
object, e.g. ostension, indication, and naming. But the other is  
"the apprehension of the object by thought", the way in which the  
object is represented (reflected/refracted/semiotically reproduced)  
by the mind.
 “What we have managed to establish here with respect to the passage  
from the preconcepts of the schoolchild to the concepts of the  
adolescent is the same thing that we managed to establish in the  
preceding study with respect to the passage of generalized  
perceptions to general representations, that is to say syncretic  
formations and complexes.” (230)
This appears to be a direct reference to Chapter Five. In 1931, LSV  
considered this to be a study of concept formation in ADOLESCENTS.  
But now he appears to have changed his mind: the previous chapter is  
concerned with the passage from generalized perceptions to general  
representations, and is thus a matter of preschoolers. This is quite  
consistent with what Paula did with three year olds to eight year  
olds.
“Just as in that case it turned out that a new stage in the  
development of generalizations can only be attained by the  
transformation, not the annulment, of the preceding stage, by the  
generalization of the objects already generalized, not by proceeding  
anew from the generalization of single objects, in the same way here  
the study has shown that the transition from preconcepts (of which  
the typical example is the arithmetical concept of the school child)  
to the true concepts of the adolescent (of which the typical example  
is the algebraic concept) happens through the generalization of  
objects which have already been generalized.”
And here we see why! The generalized perception is the PRECONDITION  
of the general representation. And the general representation is the  
precondition of the concept. The example he gives us is numbers.
Of course, at the very lowest level, numbers really are the result  
of the activity of the perceptible and perceptual activity of  
counting. But take away the objects, and the number remains as a  
generalized representation. And when we take away the number, and  
deal only with the realtion of number, the concept remains.
"The preconcept is the abstraction of the number, detached from the  
object and, founded on this abstraction, the generalization of the  
numerical properties of the object. The concept is the abstraction  
detached from the number and, founded on it, the generalization of  
any relation between numbers. But the abstraction and generalization  
of ideas differs fundamentally from the abstraction and the  
generalization of things. It is not a pursuit of movement in the  
same direction or its culmination, it is the beginning of a movement  
in a new direction, a transition to a new and higher plane of  
thinking. (230)"
This of course returns us to a point that Vygotsky made in the very  
first chapter and returns again to in the very last: the  
"dialectical leap" is not simply from inanimate to animate, but from  
perception to thinking.
There is a qualitative difference between the abstraction and  
generalization of perceptions and the abstraction and generalization  
of thoughts; they are distinct processes, and the word "activity"  
applies much more accurately to the former than the latter.
David Kellogg
Seoul National University of Education




--- On Wed, 3/24/10, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:


From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
Subject: Re: [xmca] The strange situation
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Wednesday, March 24, 2010, 9:30 PM


Steve, briefly and without references, my take was:

* *preconcepts* are a family name for all the thought-forms prior to true concepts and so includes potential concepts, pseduoconcepts, complexes. etc.
* *potential concepts* are, as far as I can, see the highest type of  
pseudoconcept, marked by its "transferability" to different sensory  
fields. Here the attributes have been completely isolated from their  
substratum.
* *complex* is a family name for a whole group of forms including  
both pseudo- and potential concepts.
Andy

Steve Gabosch wrote:
David, thanks again for these extremely useful files of your translations of T&S from Meccaci, Seve, Prout, and your Korean team. I am in awe of the work you did, and are still doing.
I thought where we got stuck last year was on that pesky creature  
from Ch 5, the 'potential concept,' not the clearer concept,  
'pseudoconcept'.  I think Vygotsky leaves no doubt that the  
pseudoconcept is a complex.  I am still struggling with precisely  
what a potential concept is.
Both complicated concepts, potential concept and pseudoconcept,  
seem to be subsumed into the Ch 6 term 'preconcept'.  That move  
gives us a simpler term, but leaves many questions unanswered.  It  
leaves us little choice but to investigate concept formation  
ourselves.
Martin, I would be most interested, when you have the time, if you  
took your recent very excellent questions and reframed them, or  
more precisely, sharpened them, in light of Ch 6.  I think some  
important work can be done analyzing Ch 5 in terms of Ch 6 - and  
looking at Ch 6, especially section 6, in terms of Ch 5.
Apparently about 3, 4 or 5 years did separate the main writing of  
these two chapters, as you and Paula suggest.  On one hand, there  
is an explosion of ideas in Ch 6 sect 6 that are barely touched on  
or anticipated in Ch 5.  On the other hand, the rich, specific  
ideas in Ch 5 are insufficiently dealt in light of the new, general  
ideas in Ch 6 sect 6.  Vygotsky left that challenge to us as well.
- Steve





On Mar 24, 2010, at 5:35 PM, David Kellogg wrote:

Martin, Steve:

Last night I showed a picture of an iguana to my graduate seminar and asked what it was. Everybody said it was an ALLIGATOR. This is strange, because the word "iguana" exists as a loan word from English in Korean, and in fact everybody confirmed that they knew the word, but the word "alligator" does not exist in Korean and instead we use a Chinese loan word (literally, "evil fish").
What this means is that my grads have the WORD but not the CONCEPT  
of Iguana--it is an example of a concept for others but not for  
myself. This is not the only situation where that is true, of  
course. For example, the words "Miss" and "Mister" also exist in  
Korean as loan words, but they are quite impolite and used to  
refer to social inferiors (bar girls, prostitutes, secretaries or  
waiters or male underlings of one kind or another). Here too the  
concept of the English polite form of address exists as a word but  
not as a concept.
Last year I suggested to Steve that in Chapter Six Vygotsky uses  
the word "preconcept" to refer to this situation, and that  
therefore the word "preconcept" is used in preference to  
"pseudoconcept" in Chapter Six. Steve objected that Chapter Five  
clearly says that a pseudoconcept is not a concept at all, but a  
complex, while Chapter Six says that it is indeed a concept,  
although not a concept for myself.
I'm still unconvinced. As Steve says there really IS a shift of  
opinion on a number of issues in Chapter Six (the carry over from  
one structure of generalization to another, for example, and also  
the issue of whether concepts can be taught to pre-adolescents).  
The word "pseudoconcept", which is so misleading that it even  
confuses LSV himself sometimes, is not LSV's coinage; he took it  
from the Sterns,who took it from somebody else.
So it seems to me that "pseudoconcept" in Chapter Five is a  
concept for others (for the Sterns), and it only becomes a concept  
for LSV himself in Chapter Six!
  David Kellogg
Seoul National University of Education

Attached is OUR re-reading of Chapter Six, here in Seoul.Sorry about the Korean!
--- On Wed, 3/24/10, Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu> wrote:


From: Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
Subject: Re: [xmca] The strange situation
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Wednesday, March 24, 2010, 12:57 PM


Thanks, Steve,

I've been putting off re-reading chapter 6, but I have to bite the bullet soon. I was thinking that trying to figure out what LSV had come up with and written about in chap 5 (and Paula has pointed out that he seems to have had this figured out by 1930) would itself be valuable. But you make a cogent argument.
Martin

On Mar 24, 2010, at 1:39 PM, Steve Gabosch wrote:

These are really, really good questions, Martin. All worth very serious exploration.
My take on Chapter 5, after doing some study of it, and Chapter  
6, last year with David Ke. and Paula T., and some discussion  
here on xmca, is that Ch 5 might be best understood in terms of  
Chapter 6, especially section 6 starting on pg 224 of Vol 1.   
Here Vygotsky gets to his major theoretical discussion of systems  
of concepts, and critiques the limitations of the block  
experiments on page 228 and 229.
He explains that the block experiment "ignored the fact that  
**each new stage in the development of generalization depends on  
the generalizations found in the preceding stages.**"  pg 229.   
He was critical of the block experiment not revealing connections  
or transitions between the stages of concept development.  He  
felt he was able to reveal these connections with the experiments  
described in Chapter 6.
It is important to emphasize that he does not at all **reject**  
the work described in Chapter 5 - the syncretic heap, complexes,  
and what he now calls preconcepts (was pseudoconcepts), and true  
concepts, are still intact - but he **adds** a whole new level of  
theorizing that he saw as crucial - suggestions for solutions to  
"the central problem" of his research in Chapter 6, involving  
systems and relationships of generality, the law of concept  
equivalence (any concept can be represented through other  
concepts in an infinite number of ways), measures of generality,  
systems of concepts, etc.  Vygotsky's most advanced thinking  
about concept formation is here in this section.  And some of  
your very good questions are addressed.
This is why I think that Chapter 5 needs to be seen as something  
of a building block toward section 6 in Chapter 6, and that it  
might be easier to read Chapter 6 sect 6 first and work  
backwards, or work them together as one study.  And don't forget  
that Vygotsky's publisher or maybe even Vygotsky himself got  
longitude and latitude backwards in the globe metaphor when he  
explains the law of concept equivalence! (pg 226)  LOL
Chapter 6 as a whole, of course, has much material on everyday vs  
scientific concepts, as well as the oft-quoted passages on the  
zone of proximal development, so that difficult section 6 in Ch 6  
kind of gets overshadowed, and maybe a little disconnected from  
Chapter 5.  The two need to be dialectically joined, I believe,  
to really grasp what Vygotsky was trying to do in both chapters.   
And there is also some discussion on pg 189 in section 2 in  
Chapter 6, and maybe a few other places in that chapter, about  
complexes and so forth, that may also shed some helpful light on  
some specifics in Chapter 5.
- Steve



On Mar 23, 2010, at 1:25 PM, Martin Packer wrote:

I am taking the liberty of recycling this subject heading, after having spent some time re-reading the posts over the weekend. I seem to have played a large part in hijacking this thread some time last year, with my obsession over the meaning of the term 'reflection.'
So this message is partly penance, but it also me trying to make  
sense of LSV's block task and what it tells us about his views  
of concepts, and their development. I find myself with the  
following questions:
1. It seems to be the case that in chapter 5 LSV doesn't mention  
the distinction between everyday concepts and scientific  
concepts. Is it at all possible that what in chapter 6 he calls  
"everyday concepts" are what he refers to in chapter 5 as  
complexes? I suspect not, but the question seems worth asking.
2. LSV seems to offer not one but two explanations of how the  
child (or rather the adolescent) forms concepts. The first  
explanation is that concepts arise from the advanced application  
of the processes of generalization and abstraction, specifically  
that the word is now used functionally for voluntary control of  
attention, permitting a mastery of these processes. The second  
explanation is based on the phenotypical identity and functional  
similarity of concepts and pseudoconcepts. The latter are  
actually complexes, but they look like concepts and so when  
child and adult interact the adult takes them to be concepts.  
The child is in a sense then using concepts without knowing it,  
and LSV appeals to the familiar Hegelian process of in-itself,  
for-others, for-self, to explain how this "internal  
contradiction"is the "basic genetic prerequisite" for the rise  
of true concepts.
I'm not suggesting that these two explanations are incompatible  
or mutually exclusive. But LSV does not seem to try to bring  
them together.
3. In other words, this second explanation is another case of  
"internalization," and the application of the general genetic  
law of cultural development. But LSV adds that this "peculiar  
genetic situation" in the move from pseudoconcepts to concepts  
should be considered the general rule rather than the exception  
in children's intellectual development. Does this not suggest  
that this same kind of process occurs as the child moves from  
heaps to complexes?
4. Generalization and abstraction are the two "channels" in the  
development of concepts - LSV refers to them also as  
"complexing" and "segregating." The first is very familiar by  
the time we get to chapter 5: he has been writing about the way  
a word is a generalization since the start (this is where as  
David has pointed out we find the quotation from Sapir.) But  
abstraction seems to appear out of nowhere. Is there a treatment  
of abstraction/segregating elsewhere in the book that I have  
missed?
5. LSV seems to get to the end of chapter 5 without ever telling  
us exactly what a concept it.  He suggests that it involves  
hierarchy, and connections that are abstract, essential, and  
homogeneous. He proposes that particular and general are linked.  
He adds that "most important" is "the unity of form and  
content," for this is what makes thinking in concepts a "real  
revolution." Can anyone pull these somewhat diverse  
(complexive?) characteristics together for me? Do they harmonize  
with the treatment of concepts (of both kinds) in chapter 6?
6. Finally, less a question than an observation. LSV writes at  
the close of chapter 5 of the way that “Concept thinking is a  
new form of intellectual activity, a new mode of conduct, a new  
intellectual mechanism. The intellect is able to find a new and  
unprecedented modus operandi in this particular activity and a  
new function becomes available within the system of intellectual  
functions which is distinctive both in its composition and  
structure as well as in the way it functions.” I take this as a  
clear indication that for LSV a concept is not simply a new kind  
of mental representation. It is, as Rosch proposes, a new way of  
relating to the world.
Any guidance through this thicket will be gratefully accepted!

Martin

_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca



<Chapter six all.doc>_______________________________________________
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://www.erythrospress.com/
Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov, Ilyenkov $20 ea
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca