I will first reply to the easiest of topics, that of the narrowness of
words and how they expand. I think Vygotsky meant a double development, that
of concepts and their connection with fantasy and emotion in adolescence
(see his essay in the Vygotsky Reader on Imagination in adolescence) and
related to that issue is also the fullness of meaning when it is linked to
sense--the more experiential aspects of meaning which add to and complete
language.
This brings me to self versus, and or subject. To me, very briefly, the self
is formed as a consequence of activity, both the consequences of
participation and of resistence to some forms of intended joint
activity.[ The latter was pointed ou to me by Carolyn Panofsky from her
studies of parental reading to preschool children. ]
Activity has varied consequences on the actor, including the internalization
of new knowledge. As a student of collaboration, I was particularly struck
by the expansion of the "self" through complementarity, as I see each of us
as just a partial realization of human potential at any historical moment. I
see a need for a self or some similar concept when dealing with the unity of
brain, mind and action.
I hope we can discuss these issues in depth in Chicago.
I agree with Keith on issues of emergence, and hope that we will have a
chance to develop the relevance of novelty and creativity to CHAT further
once our Counterpoint volume on the topic is in print (next spring.)
Mike, I will send the abstract of Mervi's talk within the next 24 hours, I
don't have it on this machine,
Vera
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Rocap" <krocap@csulb.edu>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: culture and novelty
> Dear friends,
>
> Just an observation and a slightly different point of view, after
> quoting LSV MnFamilyMan@aol.com wrote:
>
> > What I gather from this is that for individual devleopment there is a
> > movement from very narrowly defined meanings of words to larger more
> > robust definitions that come from experiencing the world.
>
> I don't read LSV as speaking about a movement from narrow definitions to
> robust definitions. I read LSV as saying that the ability for a rich
> engagement with reality (connoting a use of "concepts" that guide that
> engagement) precedes an ability to consciously and articulately express
> the concepts employed.
>
> This seems to fall simply in the "learning by doing" arena or perhaps,
> better, learning *in* doing, since no causal direction is affirmed (it
> is not posited that the doing precedes the concept, only that use of
> concepts seems evident in the doing).
>
> I take the narrowness of "the verbal definition" LSV refers to to be
> the lack of meta-awareness (metacognition?) of the adolescent and, thus,
> his/her ability to express the concept as well verbally. But I don't see
> this as a movement from narrow meanings of words to larger, more robust
> definitions, but rather as a use of words inadequate to the demonstrated
> non-verbal grasp of the concept that perhaps later improves ("catches
> up" with the non-verbal grasp) in the succeeding reflection and
> analysis. No?
>
> In Peace,
> K.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 01 2002 - 01:00:11 PDT