Hi Sasha,
"On my return from round the world tour which in the latest moment was
crowned (on my way to Heathrow airport in London) by robbery so that I’ve
lost my laptop with ALL PHOTOS :-(, passport and two notebooks with my
theoretic reflections )"
Terrible! How is this possible?
Best,
Katya
On Wed, October 25, 2006 03:13, Alexander Surmava wrote:
> Hi Ana,
>
>
>
> Sorry for the delay with answer. On my return from round the world tour
> which in the latest moment was crowned (on my way to Heathrow airport in
> London) by robbery so that I’ve lost my laptop with ALL PHOTOS :-(,
> passport
> and two notebooks with my theoretic reflections ) I become slightly ill –
> probably something like acclimatization in cold Moscow’s autumn :-).
>
> Finally I am OK and ready to explain the riddle of “singularity” from my
> previous post.
>
>
>
> This “singularity” means no more than abstract, elementary form of life.
> This form of life is an attribute of unicellular organisms and to a great
> extent – plants and characterize them as active object oriented subjects.
> Unlike most of classics of CHAT (including LSV and partly ANL) I don’t
> share
> Cartesian idea that: 1. life is merely mechanic, S - R process and that 2.
> object oriented activity is something which can be ascribed only to humans
> or broader to animals so that object oriented activity is necessarily
> connected with sensation, psyche or even consciousness.
>
> Consistent analysis based on ideas of Russian physiologist Nikolaj
> Bernstein
> and Il’enkov’s interpretation of Spinozian idea of “thinking body” leads
> us
> to conclusion that the Cartesian idea of mechanical nature of life is
> totally false and the only way to distinguish (theoretically) the living
> creature from the dead one is to examine the presence of spontaneous
> object
> oriented activity. We all have a lot of chances to see in Hollywood
> thrillers how totally dead cadaver reacts on enough powerful electric
> stimuli. In the same time without deep philosophical argumentation all
> physicians examining humans which are not evidently alive trying to detect
> a
> signs of some spontaneous activity like pulse, or heartbeats.
>
> It’s curious but even A.N.Leont’ev who positively refused plants (and
> hesitated in ascribing it to all animals) in object oriented activity
> trying
> to explain what is activity as it is insisted that plant choose the sun as
> it’s object and passionately follow it’s celestial movement by movement of
> its own leaves. (“Problems of development of psyche.”)
>
> It’s evident that this words of ANL were inspired by well known text of
> “Paris manuscripts”of Karl Marx “The sun is the object of the plant — an
> indispensable object to it, confirming its life — just as the plant is an
> object of the sun, being an expression of the life-awakening power of the
> sun, of the sun’s objective essential power”, while the specific
> contradiction evolved from Pavlov’s Cartesianism with its basic S-R
> approach.
>
>
>
> So we assume that the life itself is an active or object oriented process,
> characterized by newborn subject-object relation. In previous simpler
> modes
> of interaction, namely in mechanical and chemical type of interaction we
> have now reason to ascribe to one side of interaction a dignity of
> subjectness (even less subjectivity) while treat the other part as merely
> object.
>
> In the same time we have no reason to ascribe to this newborn alive
> subject
> something like sensation, psyche or consciousness.
>
> Summarizing all this I can say that life as it is characterized by active
> or
> subjective relation to the world and can be understood as an identity of
> three attributes: spontaneity, productivity and objectivity.
>
> I can’t explain it here in more detail. If you like you can read much more
> detailed explanation in my article “LIFE, PSYCHE, CONSCIOUSNESS” which is
> easy to download from here:
> http://www.voxnet.ru/~monada/articles.php?lng=eng
>
>
>
>>From this point of view becomes evident that both LSV and ANL staying
> entirely inside the S-R paradigm (thou trying to escape from its trap) had
> no chance to solve “the basic problem of psychology – problem of freedom”.
> (The last taken into the quotation marks words belongs to LSV and will be
> published this autumn in the first issue of new journal of Vygotsky
> Institute of psychology in Moscow.) I mean, that their attempt of
> materialistic comprehension of high mental functions based on the notion
> of
> life as something mechanical or in other words as something basically dead
> was totally unrealizable. Dead cadaver as well as stimulus reactive
> marionette can be free only in ill imagination of Cartesian theoretician.
>
>
>
> Well, but what about the promised split?
>
>
>
> The split between the abstract object oriented activity and reflexive (I
> insist, not reflective, but reflexive) activity taking place in
> phylogenesis
> when the pair of daughter cells of an ancient unicellular organism didn’t
> part each other as they used to do previously but give birth to basically
> new type of an organism whose object oriented activity is now
> substantially
> mediated by self directed of reflexive activity of its subactive organs.
> The
> life of this organism taking in relation to its object is sensation or
> intellect while taking in relation to itself is selfsensation or affect.
> Thus affect and intellect are comprehended not as something which has
> different roots and interacts in some external unity but as something
> basically identical, as two opposite attributes of one and the same life.
>
>
>
> So I strongly object “people like Jean-Luc Nancy” who insists that “there
> has to be a WITH preceding this split so that it can occur in the first
> place, but it is an undifferentiated WITH…’ this, that, and the other.
> Trying to share the basic theoretic position of LSV which are known as
> materialistic and dialectical approach of Spinoza and Marx (thou
> inevitably
> contradicting to his scientific results) we insist that the most basic
> relation is relation of subject to its object, the life relation, while
> “WITH-relation” or in our terms reflexive relation in no more than
> derivate
> form of the same object oriented activity.
>
>
>
> Again I have interrupt myself and put the dot, because my explanations
> become too long. All details, including the next - human or cultural stage
> of development you can find in mentioned above article.
>
>
>
> As for Vygotsky’s attempts “to break out of” slightly naïve rooted in
> French
> Enlightment position regarding different cultures I agree with you that
> this
> question is worth to discuss.
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Sasha
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of Ana Marjanovic-Shane
> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 5:00 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Unbelievable - & Spanish
>
>
>
> Hi Sasha,
>
>
>
> You wrote:
>
>
>
> This singularity splits itself into the opposition of object oriented
>
> activity as it is and reflexive or self directed activity which
> mediates
> the
>
> very object oriented activity starting from multicellular animals.
> From
> this
>
> point of view the human language is not something alien to the human
> object
>
> oriented activity (like conventional sign) but something basically
>
> congeneric to it, a definite level of its own evolution.
>
>
>
> I would like to better understand this. How are multicellular animals
>
> connected to the "split" between object oriented activity and self
>
> directed reflective activity?? Actually, how do you see this split occur
>
> phylogenetically and ontogenetically??
>
>
>
> On the other hand, I interpreted Vygotsky's view that language and
>
> thought have two different roots and then at some point become related
>
> -- as an illustration of the reorganization in the relationships between
>
> different mental functions. That issue is not the issue where I saw
>
> Vygotsky trying to break away from the paradigms he himself criticized.
>
> What I had in mind is more the fact that at some points it seems that
>
> LSV was trying to establish universal stages of ontogenetic and also of
>
> cultural development, while at the same time trying to balance
>
> differences between different cultures and their idiosyncratic systems
>
> of cultural lore, activities and ultimately psychological processes. So
>
> when we read about "primitive" and "modern" or literate cultures, it
>
> looks like a form of cultural centrism still pervaded LSV's (and
>
> Luria's) work, while on the other hand there is an attempt to break out
>
> of that kind of thinking.
>
> Ana
>
>
>
>
>
> Alexander Surmava wrote:
>
>> Hi, Ana,
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> You route: "I have the feeling that he is trying to break away from the
>
>> paradigms he had criticized himself, but is not quite where he wants to
> be".
>
>> I entirely agree with this statement.
>
>>
>
>> Moreover I can point mentioned problem of relation between language and
>
>> thought as an example of such finding him "not quite where he wants to
> be".
>
>> I mean that the very LSV's idea of independent routes of thought and
>
>> language can be hardly estimated as dialectical but rather dualistic.
>> The
>
>> real dialectical relation can be founded only in case of splitting some
>
>> singular basis into opposite contradictory halves. Thus in our case we
> will
>
>> have the real dialectical relation between language and thought only in
> case
>
>> if we are starting from the singularity of life (taking in its most
>
>> elementary form as life relation of unicellular to its objective field).
>
>>
>
>> This singularity splits itself into the opposition of object oriented
>
>> activity as it is and reflexive or self directed activity which mediates
> the
>
>> very object oriented activity starting from multicellular animals. From
> this
>
>> point of view the human language is not something alien to the human
> object
>
>> oriented activity (like conventional sign) but something basically
>
>> congeneric to it, a definite level of its own evolution.
>
>>
>
>> Meanwhile LSV starting from two independent roots tried to solve an
>
>> insolvable task -- establish some "dialectical" relation between them.
>
>>
>
>> In one of his rather old articles Andy Blunden asserted:
>
>>
>
>> "Vygotsky observes that previous study of the thought-language
> relationship
>
>> considered the genesis of each side of the relation in isolation and
> assumed
>
>> that the relation between the two was invariable; or alternatively,
>
>> mechanically identified the two. On the contrary, Vygotsky proposed the
>
>> necessity of conceiving of the object of investigation as a unity of
>
>> opposites and that the inherent genesis of the relation was at its very
>
>> essence."
>
>>
>
>> This is true, to realize the dialectical approach one has to find in the
>
>> reality (not only in own imagination) "a unity of opposites". But if
>
>> according to LSV "In their ontogenetic development, thought and speech
> have
>
>> different roots" the unity of such opposites will have arbitrary, not
>
>> dialectical character. To be dialectical opposites the sides of our
>> unity
>
>> must have one and the same root.
>
>>
>
>> Thus LSV's attempt to set dialectic against metaphysics of his
> predecessors
>
>> failed so that his reflections (at least in case of language and thought
>
>> relation) entirely remain in dualistic trap.
>
>>
>
>> Surely all this can be relatively clear only from the position "on the
>
>> shoulders" of Vygotsky, Leont'ev and especially Il'enkov.
>
>>
>
>> Sasha
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>> On
>
>> Behalf Of Ana Marjanovic-Shane
>
>> Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 2:15 AM
>
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>
>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Unbelievable - & Spanish
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> It does sound paradoxical, but in fact the word "language" does not mean
>
>>
>
>> the same in both statements from Derrida. The can both be true if we
>
>>
>
>> have different meanings for "language".
>
>>
>
>> As for whether LSV's thinking was fully or not fully dialectical, can
>
>>
>
>> you cans some references for the texts you are mentioning, Michael? What
>
>>
>
>> you said is interesting because I sometimes see Vygotsky's texts as
>
>>
>
>> totally dialectical and sometimes I have the feeling that he is trying
>
>>
>
>> to break away from the paradigms he had criticized himself, but is not
>
>>
>
>> quite where he wants to be. But I have not read anybody else's thoughts
>
>>
>
>> on that.
>
>>
>
>> Ana
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Wolff-Michael Roth wrote:
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> In all your deliberations about (mono, bi-, multi-) lingualism,
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> consider the following incompossible, contradictory propositions that
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> are truly dialectical in their tenure and are sublated in actual human
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> praxis:
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> 1. We only ever speak one language.
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> 2. We never speak only one language.
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> (Derrida, 1998, p. 7)
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> Derrida, J. (1998). Monolingualism of the Other; or, The prosthesis of
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> origin. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> To anyone interested in a dialectical account that LSV never could
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> achieve because he was not fully thinking dialectically---according to
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> a number of texts I recently came across---I recommend this little
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> booklet very highly.
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> I think we are allowed, and this is fully compatible with a
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> dialectical theory of science (see Il'enkov) to go beyond the giants
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> (i.e., LSV) on whose shoulders we stand.
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> Cheers,
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> Michael
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> On 20-Oct-06, at 10:08 AM, nacho.montero@uam.es wrote:
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> Ok guys,
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> let's go with bilingualism
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> Vale,
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> vamos con el bilinguismo
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> As a first time, I´m going to try with both languages at the same time.
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> Como es la primera vez, voy a intentar usar las dos lenguas.
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> My comment today is that it is very important to realize that a real
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> bilingualism should include scientific knowledge -whatever you want to
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> understand by this.
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> Mi primer comentario es que considero muy importante darse cuenta de
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> que un
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> bilinguismo total debe incluir el conocimiento científico.
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> Last week, Olga Vazquez visited my University and made a presentation
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> on "La
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> clase mágica". One of the most relevant comments from the audience
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> -all of us
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> spanish researchers and undergradute students- was about the
>>> assymetrical
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> bilingualism that we still perceived within that so interesting
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> experience
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> implemented by Olga and her collaborators.
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> La semana pasada Olga Vazquez estuvo en mi Universidad presentando su
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> investigación en "La clase Mágica". El comentario más repetido por
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> parte de la
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> audiencia fue sobre nuestra percepción de que el bilinguismo implícito
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> en la
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> experiencia es todavía asimétrico.
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> We expressed this idea in terms of a defense of Spanish as a scientic
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> language. But we also realized that it would be applied to other
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> languages and
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> we made a parallelism between the Mexican at the USA and the arabian
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> at Spain.
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> Expresamos esa idea como la necesidad de defender el español como
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> lenguaje
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> científico. Pero también éramos conscientes de que eso afecta al resto
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> de las
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> lenguas. Reflexionamos sobre la situación de los inmigrantes de origen
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> árabe
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> en ESpaña y establecíamos un cierto paralelismo con la situación de los
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> inmigrantes de origen Mexicano (hispanos en general) implicados en la
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> Clase
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> Mágica.
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> So I think is time to tackle the issue in XMCA, but I wonder if Thought
>>> &
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> Language is to long as a first attempt. We can go twofold. Just some
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> chapters
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> from T&L. Or just some chapters from M in S. I'll delighted any way.
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> Así que creo que ha llegado el momento de abordar este asunto dentro
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> de XMCA
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> pero creo que Pensamiento y Lenguaje puede resultad demasiado largo
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> para un
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> primer intento. Podemos empezar por algún capítulo aunque también
>>> podemos
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> hacer lo mismo con "Mind in Society". Estaré encantado con cualquiera
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> de las
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> dos opciones.
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> NACHO.
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> Mensaje enviado mediante una herramienta Webmail integrada en *El
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> Rincon*:
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> ------------->>>>>>>> https://rincon.uam.es
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> <<<<<<<<--------------
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> _______________________________________________
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>> 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
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ana Marjanovic'-Shane,Ph.D.
>
>
>
> 151 W. Tulpehocken St.
>
>
>
> Philadelphia, PA 19144
>
>
>
> Home office: (215) 843-2909
>
>
>
> Mobile: (267) 334-2905
>
>
>
> ana@zmajcenter.org <mailto:ana@zmajcenter.org>
>
>
>
> http://www.speakeasy.org/~anamshane
> <http://www.speakeasy.org/%7Eanamshane>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
-- Katarina A. Rodina MSc in Speech-Language Pathology, PhD-Research Fellow, Department of Special Needs Education University of Oslo P.O.Box 1140 Blindern NO-0318 OSLO,Norway Phone: +47 22 85 81 38 Fax: +47 22 85 80 21 E-mail: katarina.rodina@isp.uio.no_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2006 - 01:00:15 PST