Re: [xmca] social memory

Yes I think we have a mix up over the meaning of the word "methodology".

The way I see it is that particularly in the post-WW2 decades there was a
debate among philosophers and scientists about "methodology", i.e., about
the best method of approaching problems in science. That is the usage I was
presuming.

In mid-19th century terms though, the question of the priority of the deed
to the word meant that problems of psychology or social consciousness,
"superstructure" and so on, had to be resolved through their connection
with what people are doing, or "economic base". The German Ideology,
Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy and Theses
on Feuerbach, are the canoncial texts for this.

:)

Andy

At 07:53 PM 1/01/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>Andy,
>
>I think I'm not understanding what you mean by "methodology."
>Usually, I think it means there's a method that guides conduct. I take
>your point (with Marx and Engles) to be that conduct precedes a post-hoc
>rationalization of its "method." "Im Anfang war die Tat."
>
>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Andy Blunden wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>I think you're just being provocative Tony, either that or you are guilty
>>of a kind of ahistoricism. In the middle- to late-19th century, there was
>>a great battle over materialism vs idealism and Peirce, Mead & Co. are
>>just as much beneficiaries of that struggle as Vygotsky, Leontyev and
>>Luria. Sure, by the mid-20th century, science had moved on to deeper
>>contradictions, but at the time when Capital was written people still
>>believed in a "life force" which entered the flesh and was responsible
>>for vitality and a soul which entered the body, responsible for
>>consciousness, just as historians existed who thought history was shaped
>>by "great men" and economists who believed that "value is in the eye of
>>the beholder".
>>
>>But perhaps I misunderstood you??
>>
>>Andy
>>At 07:13 PM 1/01/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>>>I think you're right, Andy, except that what you're talking about seems
>>>to be not methodology, but its antithesis.
>>>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Andy Blunden wrote:
>>>
>>>>Yes Tony I realised later. I had always thought it was Genesis for some
>>>>reason.
>>>>Although Paul is correct in noting that no-one was there "in the
>>>>beginning", in the Marxist tradition, this quotation has always been in
>>>>my opinion about *methodological* primacy, although it is presented in
>>>>a manner of causal primacy.
>>>>Marx: Capital http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch02.htm:
>>>>To the owner of a commodity, every other commodity is, in regard to his
>>>>own, a particular equivalent, and consequently his own commodity is the
>>>>universal equivalent for all the others. But since this applies to
>>>>every owner, there is, in fact, no commodity acting as universal
>>>>equivalent, and the relative value of commodities possesses no general
>>>>form under which they can be equated as values and have the magnitude
>>>>of their values compared. So far, therefore, they do not confront each
>>>>other as commodities, but only as products or use-values. In their
>>>>difficulties our commodity owners think like Faust: Im Anfang war die
>>>>Tat. They therefore acted and transacted before they thought.
>>>>Instinctively they conform to the laws imposed by the nature of
>>>>commodities. They cannot bring their commodities into relation as
>>>>values, and therefore as commodities, except by comparing them with
>>>>some one other commodity as the universal equivalent.
>>>>---------------------------------
>>>>Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific 1880
>>>>http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/int-mat.htm
>>>>Again, our agnostic admits that all our knowledge is based upon the
>>>>information imparted to us by our senses. But, he adds, how do we know
>>>>that our senses give us correct representations of the objects we
>>>>perceive through them? And he proceeds to inform us that, whenever we
>>>>speak of objects, or their qualities, of which he cannot know anything
>>>>for certain, but merely the impressions which they have produced on his
>>>>senses. Now, this line of reasoning seems undoubtedly hard to beat by
>>>>mere argumentation. But before there was argumentation, there was
>>>>action. Im Anfang war die That. And human action had solved the
>>>>difficulty long before human ingenuity invented it. The proof of the
>>>>pudding is in the eating. From the moment we turn to our own use these
>>>>objects, according to the qualities we perceive in them, we put to an
>>>>infallible test the correctness or otherwise of our sense-perception.
>>>>If these perceptions have been wrong, then our estimate of the use to
>>>>which an object can be turned must also be wrong, and our attempt must fail.
>>>>--------------------------
>>>>BTW, another favourite Goethe quote, which is counterposed to Hegel's
>>>>"All that is real is rational, All that is rational is real" is "All
>>>>that exists deserves to perish." also from Faust:
>>>>Universal suffrage seems to have survived only for the moment, so that
>>>>with its own hand it may make its last will and testament before the
>>>>eyes of all the world and declare in the name of the people itself:
>>>>"All that exists deserves to perish."
>>>>http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At 06:01 PM 1/01/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>>>>>In case it matters, the translated line is not from Genesis, but from
>>>>>the Gospel of St. John, where the word in the original is "logos"
>>>>>(which was then translated into Latin as "verbum").
>>>>>On Tue, 1 Jan 2008, Paul Dillon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Andy, Michael,
>>>>>> I personally don't remember the beginning since I wasn't there and
>>>>>> I don't believe anyone who wants to tell me what it was since one
>>>>>> thing I do know is that they weren't there either. Also it seems
>>>>>> to me that the stories about what the beginning was all about change over time.
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>>>>> I presume everyone talking about "Vygotsky's quote" knows that it
>>>>>> all comes
>>>>>>from Goethe? Apart form the Book of Gensis.
>>>>>>'Tis writ, "In the beginning was the Word!"
>>>>>>I paused, perlex'd, Who now will help afford?
>>>>>>I cannot the Word so highly prize;
>>>>>>I must translate it otherwise,
>>>>>>If by the spirit guided as I read.
>>>>>>"In the beginning was the Sense"!" Take heed,
>>>>>>The import of this primal sentence weigh,
>>>>>>Lest thy too hasty pen be led astray!
>>>>>>Is force creative then of Sense the dower?
>>>>>>"In the beginning was the Power!"
>>>>>>Thus should it stand: yet while the line I trace,
>>>>>>A something warns me. once more to efface,
>>>>>>The spirit aids! from anxious scruples freed,
>>>>>>I write, "In the beginning was the Deed!"
>>>>>>Translation from the Dover edition (Im Anfang war der Tat") Marx and
>>>>>>Engels
>>>>>>also take up the theme, Bruno Bauer I think?? and even Bukharin and
>>>>>>Trotsky
>>>>>>has their own twist on at more or less the same time as Vygotsky was
>>>>>>writing.
>>>>>>Andy
>>>>>>At 01:01 AM 1/01/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>>>>>>>Michael
>>>>>>>Thanks for this. Let me do some tasting. I hope you don't mind if I
>>>>>>>use my brand of ketchup :-) .
>>>>>>>Okay all of this seems to be in response to a question I asked Paul
>>>>>>>(and, by the way, Paul I am fine if you remember me as somehow looking
>>>>>>>over your shoulder :-) ). So let me try to get a very simplistic grip on
>>>>>>>the phenomena. Paul and I were in conversation. Due to some words he had
>>>>>>>written, I had responded in writing. Due to the words in my
>>>>>>>response, you
>>>>>>>had responded to my writing. And so forth. Given all this Vygotsky is
>>>>>>>clearly wrong. Neither the word or the deed is in the beginning. As
>>>>>>>James
>>>>>>>says it is turtles all the way down.
>>>>>>>Hmmm. Let me make a hermeneutic move. Perhaps I have misinterpreted
>>>>>>>all this. You quote Vygotsky as saying "In the beginning was the deed."
>>>>>>>This may be a purposeful 'misquote' of John's
>>>>>>>I. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
>>>>>>>Word
>>>>>>>was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God. [3] All thus were
>>>>>>>made through him. Without him was not anything made that has been made.
>>>>>>>So perhaps a place to start is a taking seriously of this
>>>>>>>'misquoting' by
>>>>>>>better understanding the original. Beginning in the English, Word
>>>>>>>seems to
>>>>>>>designate a 'him' on which, in a sense, the very existence of the world
>>>>>>>rests and a 'him' that is different from God, but so close to be
>>>>>>>God. In a
>>>>>>>sense, thinking about some things David Kellog has written (thanks
>>>>>>>David),
>>>>>>>perhaps the ultimate, in a sense, interaction. How does this reading
>>>>>>>stand
>>>>>>>up in the Greek (please note, for me, a reading and a translation
>>>>>>>are, in
>>>>>>>a sense, different). The first sentence is "En archê ên ho logos, kai ho
>>>>>>>logos ên pros ton theon, kai theos ên ho logos" which roughly reads
>>>>>>>'From
>>>>>>>the very first was the Wisdom-in-action of GodŠ.'
>>>>>>>So, perhaps, Vygotsky has nicely made the point here-contrary to the
>>>>>>>usual translation-that it is not that the word-as-rules (I am using
>>>>>>>David's wording here) is first. I would like to think that he might say
>>>>>>>that it is also not action-as-rules that is first, but the
>>>>>>>word-as-action
>>>>>>>(David's interaction seems, in a sense, to work here. Notice I have
>>>>>>>interchanged wisdom or word; however, I mean wisdom). This seems to fit
>>>>>>>into how I often read Vygotsky (and, for me, reading and quoting are, in
>>>>>>>a sense, different).
>>>>>>>This seems to begin to address the phenomena a bit better. My words to
>>>>>>>Paul aren't (pause here and take a breath) without my action with the
>>>>>>>send key. Pressing the send key without any words doesn't solve the
>>>>>>>problem. Somehow word-as-action creates the interaction. However, l
>>>>>>>disagree with both Vygotsky and myself as I make yet another hermeneutic
>>>>>>>move. I'll put it this way, 'In the beginning was.' Being in the world,
>>>>>>>existing in the world - wasing - is the beginning of development. Action
>>>>>>>and words seem to be derivative. Seems trivial doesn't it? Don't believe
>>>>>>>it. Of course, I could be wrong (and that's another hermeneutical
>>>>>>>move :-) ).
>>>>>>>What would Vygotsky say to all this. I like to think he would say,
>>>>>>>'Interesting point. Have you thought about ..?' However, such
>>>>>>>speculations are, of course. not quoting. On the other hand, I am rather
>>>>>>>sure he would say, "Writing this stuff on New Year's Eve? Get a life."
>>>>>>>Ed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hi Ed,
>>>>>>>>here is what Vygotsky (1986, p. 255) says:
>>>>>>>>"In the beginning was the deed. The words was not the beginning-action
>>>>>>>>was there first; it is the end of development, crowning the deed."
>>>>>>>>Just some "food for thought."
>>>>>>>>Michael
>>>>>>>>On 30-Dec-07, at 12:52 PM, Ed Wall wrote:
>>>>>>>>Michael
>>>>>>>>Do you mean the correct order is: "Thank you in advance", why do
>>>>>>>>people write? :-)
>>>>>>>>Ed
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 30-Dec-07, at 12:21 PM, Ed Wall wrote:
>>>>>>>>>A general question for you: Why do people write "Thank you in
>>>>>>>>>advance."?
>>>>>>>>>Ed,
>>>>>>>>>you are reversing the question of praxis and theory, the former
>>>>>>>>>generally emerging prior to the latter. We may do things to achieve
>>>>>>>>>purposes, and then find reasons for doing them. Or this is how
>>>>>>>>>Marx saw it.
>>>>>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>Michael
>>>>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
>>>>>>mobile 0409 358 651
>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>xmca mailing list
>>>>>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>---------------------------------
>>>>>>Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>xmca mailing list
>>>>>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>Tony Whitson
>>>>>UD School of Education
>>>>>NEWARK DE 19716
>>>>>twhitson@udel.edu
>>>>>_______________________________
>>>>>"those who fail to reread
>>>>> are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
>>>>> -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>xmca mailing list
>>>>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
>>>>mobile 0409 358 651
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>xmca mailing list
>>>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>Tony Whitson
>>>UD School of Education
>>>NEWARK DE 19716
>>>twhitson@udel.edu
>>>_______________________________
>>>"those who fail to reread
>>> are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
>>> -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>xmca mailing list
>>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>>Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
>>mobile 0409 358 651
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>xmca mailing list
>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>Tony Whitson
>UD School of Education
>NEWARK DE 19716
>
>twhitson@udel.edu
>_______________________________
>
>"those who fail to reread
> are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
> -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
>
>_______________________________________________
>xmca mailing list
>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

  Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
mobile 0409 358 651

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Tue Jan 1 17:27 PST 2008