Nate, Andy,
Well . . . whatever seems best. I'm not sure how to interpret the relative
absence of commentary on Ch. 2. Maybe everyone is busy or sees it as a
simple continuation of the emphasis on consciousness being an aspect of
social relationships, etc. As has been pointed out, the chapter is
schematic. I personally find this a difficult theoretical premise and was
hoping that others would have something substantive to contribute.
Perhaps Leont'ev's position seems formulaic, perhaps merely simplistic to
others following this discussion/reading but I think it's quite complex
since the "natural attitude" of our everyday life seems to indicate the
contrary and there is little research that transcends that perspective.
It's like looking at the sun and thinking: "it isn't moving, the earth is."
That's easy for us to represent now since we were socialized into that world
view, and isn't it the case that we don't really perceive the sun as moving
even though that's what is given to our senses? Still I have vivid memories
of witnessing a 7/8 eclipse of the sun in the plaza of Atun Guayllay,
province of Angaraes, Department of Huancavelica, seated with a group of
quechua speaking peasants who asked me to explain how "los cientificos"
explained "inti wanusqa" (sun's dying). I got that classic blank stare as I
began to attempt to explain that the earth really went around the sun and
the moon came between the earth and the sun, etc.. To me it's analagous like
the problem to that of fish recognizing water. So it's very difficult yet
superficially quite transparent, and consequently quite difficult to say
anything meaningful without considerable mental effort, i guess. And then
there's that constant inertia to fall back to the fallacy of individual
agency that Carl Ratner criticizes so vehemently. After all, it really is
hard to see it any other way, to really grasp it, that is.
I found it quite interesting that Andy's quote came from "Private Property
and Communism" since property relations are among the most fundamental
social relations--Marx's point that the abolition of private property would
result in "the complete emancipation of all human senses and qualities".
Even more interesting--i repeat myself--that no one has carried out
systematic research into the ontogenesis of concepts of property and the
relation of these oh-so basic social relations with the other aspects of
perception, personality, activity, consciousness.
Some gleanings from Leont'ev's "Activity and Consciousness" related to the
reflection issue:
"Activity is by no means simply the expresser and vehicle of the mental
image objectivized in its product."
"Materialized activity is richer, truer than the consciousness that
anticipates it. Moreover, for the consciousness of the subject the
contributions made by his activity remain hidden. So it comes about that
the consciousness may appear to be the basis of activity.
"Let me put this in a different way. The reflection of the products of the
objective activity which materialises the connections and the relationships
between social individuals appears to them to be phenomena of their
consciousness. But in reality there lie beyond these phenomena the
above-mentioned objective connections and relationships, not in a clear and
obvious form but in a sublated form hidden from the subject. At the same
time the phenomena of consciousness constitute a real element in the motion
of activity. "
But before we move on, Nate, I'd like to know more about Venger, Zap,
Galperin, etc. if you could oblige with an overview and how you see them
developing the problem of psychic reflection that Leont'ev developed.
Meanwhile, I'll just keep huming to myself that old doo-wah classic: "Are
there stars out tonight? I can't tell if it's cloudy or bright, for I only
have eyes, for yoooooooo, dear. . ." because as my daughter said, it's
starting to smell like Christmas.
Paul H. Dillon
----- Original Message -----
From: Nate Schmolze <nate_schmolze@yahoo.com>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 4:45 PM
Subject: RE: Leontiev Ch. 2 ... 3?
> My input would be to wait til Monday - giving at least this week to see if
> something develops with chapter 2. Reflection seems to be a central
theme -
> at least with the Russian research that followed -Venger, Zap, Galperin
etc.
>
> Paul, what are your thought?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:a.blunden@pb.unimelb.edu.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 5:01 PM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: Leontiev Ch. 2 ... 3?
>
>
> Time's slipping by ... any objection to me sending something by way of
> starting discussion on Chapter 3?
> Andy
> _________________________________________
> At 21:46 04/10/2000 -0700, you wrote:
> >>>>
>
> Dear xmca'ers, I have been following the posts for the last five days from
a
> non-personal computer and been unable to respond to the calls to move on
to
> Ch 2. I get the feeling that people are waiting for me to start it. I do
> have all the notes from careful reading(s) of the chapter ready to write a
> precis and expect to post that on Thursday morning. It's Wednesday night
> right now and I just got back home. But if anyone is anxious to start the
> discussion of Ch. 2, please feel free to post away since I don't think
that
> my role as chapter facilitator includes any function analogous to that of
> the buzzer at Olympic races or, maybe more to the point, school bell
> alerting everyone that it's time to file into the classroom. And although
> Yrjo Engestrom didn't find any way to summarize the discussion, I'm
> wondering if anyone else might dare to boil down some salient points of
> convergence or disagreement beyond the "individual activity" issue already
> raised. But with reference to that exchange I'd like to draw on a quote
from
> Leont'ev that James Wertsch used in "Vygotsky and The Social Formation of
> the Mind.", p.211. " . . . human psychology is concerned with the activity
> of concrete individuals, which takes place either in a collective--that
is,
> jointly with other people--or in a situation in which the subject deals
> directly with the surround world of objects--for example, at the potter's
> wheel or the writer's desk. However, if we removed human activity from the
> system of social relationships and social life, it would not exist and
would
> have no structure. With all its varied forms, the human indivdual's
activity
> is a system in the system of social relations. It does not exist without
> these relations. The specific form in which it exists is determined by the
> forms and means of material and mental social interaction (Verkehr) that
are
> created by the development of production and that cannot be realized in
any
> way other than in the activity of concrete people. It turns out that the
> activity of separate individuals depends on their place in society, on the
> conditions that fall to their lot, and on idiosyncratic, individual
> factors." Hoping that doesn't jump the gun on later chapters :)
> Reflectively, Paul H. Dillon
>
>
>
>
> **************************************************
> * Andy Blunden, Teaching Space Support Team Leader
> * Email ablunden@unimelb.edu.au or andy@mira.net
> * http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> * University of Melbourne 9344 0312 (W) 9380 9435 (H)
> **************************************************
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2000 - 01:01:16 PST