Re: [xmca] Subject: Verb, Object

This idea is something that has become clearer to me since completing this
article about a year ago.

It is an ontology for the purpose of understanding human subjectivity,
Steve, so it is concerned with the kind of "things" we can perceive or
sensibly talk about. (Just like one has a "unit of analysis" for a certain
project, one has an ontology for a certain project.) So for example, you
can say that a certain kind of thing (such as a comet for example) exists
and we all understand that it would be absurd to claim that the existence
of the comet depended on us thinking about it. But if you get right down to
what you mean by the word "comet" then I would have to say that while the
claim has a basis in nature, nature does not know about "things" or
"theories" or "forces" or any such thing. Nature is what is not a human
labour process. We know it is such that it constrains our activity, and we
test out that boundary in making and using artefacts - all of which must
obey "the laws of nature" - and engaging in practical activity - which is
also subject to the laws of physics insofar as we do anything with an
artefact (including our own body).

Of course Steve, I am open to persuasion!! This idea is only a couple of
months old. But I really do think that if we establish this at the outset,
we can clear up a lot of confusion in psychology. There is nothing in this
claim that denies that nature exists and has its own ways independently of
us. But there is nothing that can be said of it which does not entail
reference to artefacts (such as instruments or bits of matter), ideas (such
as theories, concepts) and practical activity. Theses on Feuerbach agrees
with me on that.

http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/hegels-spirit.htm argues the idea at
slightly greater length in the context of Hegel critique.

Some people want an ontology that says there are signs and tools. An
ontology like that just generates confusion, IMHO. Some people use an
ontology which says there are ideas and matter. Equally, this leads only to
confusion. Having the right ontology helps a lot in step two. But I am most
certainly open to persuasion.

Andy

At 08:57 PM 2/01/2008 -0500, you wrote:

>On Jan 2, 2008, at 12:41 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>>The view that I have come to is that we need to set out from the
>>very beginning a tripartite ontology. There are three kinds of
>>entity in the world: ideas (or psyche), artefacts (including the
>>human body, as well as signs, tools, means of production, etc.,
>>culture in other words) and activities.
>
>
>Whoa. "Three kinds of entity" (entities) - and from the way you state
>this, as an "ontology," **only** these three kinds of entities - in
>the world? How about nature, here on earth and the rest of the
>universe? (And a secondary question - how are ideas not "artefacts"?
>But that is another issue). Do you really mean these words, Andy?
>If you do, where is this tripartite ontology argued? I can grasp this
>kind of three-part all-inclusive list as attempting to describe human
>subjectivity, the object of discussion in your paper. This focus
>might make the above statement, in a sense, a tripartite
>"epistemology" - a statement about the nature of human knowledge in
>its broadest sense, and the three kinds of essential components human
>knowledge or more broadly consciousness is comprised of. But as a
>"tripartite ontology," a statement about the nature of reality, human
>**and** not human, and the three entities it is comprised of, I can't
>see how this could work. Surely, the universe is comprised of more
>than human ideas (psyche), artefacts (culture) and activities. Not
>that I would try to convince you otherwise, if this ontology is indeed
>your real belief. Is it?
>
>Not attacking, just genuinely puzzled.
>- Steve
>
>
>
>On Jan 2, 2008, at 12:41 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>
>>I think it helps a lot if we don't at this fundamental level talk
>>about "signs". In the Peircean sense of course "sign" includes tools
>>as well as indexes in general, and icons as well as symbols, but it
>>is easy to slip into forgetting this, and forgetting that signs are
>>material things in every case. This is not the normal meaning of the
>>word "sign." On the other hand, with "tool" or "sign" we think of
>>tools having use and signs having meaning. Signs in the Peircean
>>sense can "do" in the same way any material thing does something,
>>like falling or expanding or flowing or whatever. Which is OK, but I
>>think that is a slightly different take on "doing." Confusion
>>without end.
>>
>>The thing which is important for psychology and I think the least
>>ambiguous is "artefact". Artefacts have meaning and use and they are
>>material things obedient to the laws of physics. They have by their
>>nature the capacity for only a certain range of uses, and afford
>>only certain meanings (A Confucion poem cannot be made to mean the
>>Highway Code).
>>
>>"Artefact" also is helpful in avoiding the sort of conundrums with
>>ideas like "reifying". I think artefacts cannot "do". I think doing
>>in this context is something that people do and consciously to boot.
>>Artefacts, like all material things, lend themselves to this or that
>>use. So surely people do things with artefacts, all kinds of things
>>actually, without limit. On the other hand, the human body has to be
>>taken as an artefact, and that can be confusing.
>>
>>The view that I have come to is that we need to set out from the
>>very beginning a tripartite ontology. There are three kinds of
>>entity in the world: ideas (or psyche), artefacts (including the
>>human body, as well as signs, tools, means of production, etc.,
>>culture in other words) and activities. "Activity" in this sense it
>>to be taken as very general, using artefacts with a certain idea in
>>mind. Artefacts are material things and the laws of natural science
>>deal with them.
>>
>>
>>Andy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>At 03:57 PM 2/01/2008 +1100, you wrote:
>>>Hi Tony, doesn't DO run the risk of reifying concepts (or if you
>>>prefer, signs)? Surely people DO with signs? What people do depends
>>>on
>>>how they can use the sign. I agree with you that words do not have
>>>meaning, but to know what meaning a sign has is to be able to use it.
>>>I don't think signs generate interpretants, unless the perceiver
>>>has a
>>>use for it.
>>>
>>>Cheers, Geoff
>>>
>>>On 02/01/2008, Tony Whitson <twhitson@udel.edu> wrote:
>>> > How about this: Words (or, more generally, signs) don't HAVE
>>>meaning --
>>> > meaning is not something that they HAVE or CONTAIN or CONVEY, but
>>>what
>>> > they DO -- words and signs MEAN, in the interpretants that they
>>>generate.
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Geoff wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > I'd like to add to Andy's explanation by referring to
>>>Wittgenstein's
>>> > > take on meaning - it's about use. I'd argue that words and
>>>artifacts
>>> > > derive their meaning by their usage as defined by the users.
>>>(Those in
>>> > > the language game in Wittgensteinian terms.) One of the nice
>>>things
>>> > > about Wittgenstein's definition is that it sets up a fluid
>>>boundary,
>>> > > leaving scope for changing habitus.
>>> > >
>>> > > Cheers, Geoff
>>> > >
>>> > > On 02/01/2008, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>> > >> I plead guilty to all charges of misuse of the names of parts/
>>> types of
>>> > >> psychology.
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Re culture as both material and ideal. Let's take an example,
>>>the American
>>> > >> gun culture. Now, it's true as the NRA always say "It is
>>>people that commit
>>> > >> murder, not guns". But, nonetheless, the presence of 500
>>>million guns
>>> > >> scattered around suburban America is a danger, isn't it?
>>>because people
>>> > >> *can* use them to murder .... and do. So culture, being made
>>>up of material
>>> > >> things, has properties which are relatively independent of the
>>>activities
>>> > >> in which they are used. But if the country was populated
>>>solely by
>>> > >> pacifists they would not be a danger. Clearing land makes for
>>>consequences
>>> > >> which were not intended by the people who cleared the land.
>>>(land=artefact,
>>> > >> erosion and farming=meaning).
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Conversely, a library full of book written in the Gothic
>>>script is no use
>>> > >> when Germans can no longer read the old fashioned script.
>>>"Affordances" is
>>> > >> a word which is relevant here I guess.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Jim Wertsch's article on narrative tools which was circulated
>>>earlier this
>>> > >> week, was full of observations about the fact that cultural
>>>tools are
>>> > >> involved in shaping action, but never determine it. (Great
>>>article BTW. I
>>> > >> am now an admirer of Jim W.)
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Because activity, thought and artefacts (culture) have
>>>different material
>>> > >> bases, they are never perfectly identified. A word may have
>>>different
>>> > >> meanings in different contexts and among different people, but
>>>acquaintance
>>> > >> with the word both conditions and affords certain kinds of
>>>activity and
>>> > >> consciousness.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> So an artefact and its use (meaning) necessarily coincide at a
>>>certain
>>> > >> point, but the artefact may have existed before people found
>>>that it could
>>> > >> have a certain use and later on, the artefact may find
>>>different uses. Like
>>> > >> words and meanings and "intelligent speech".
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Meaning is, I would say, the place of an artefact in some
>>>specific
>>> > >> activity. Meaning is particular, artefact is universal. So one
>>>and the same
>>> > >> artefact may have different meanings because it will play a
>>>part in
>>> > >> different systems of activity. And actually, it can mean
>>>different things
>>> > >> in one and the same system of activity because I have skated
>>>over the role
>>> > >> of consciousness in this explanation. "Christmas" means
>>>something different
>>> > >> to a housewife, a child, a parent, a moslem, etc., etc. even
>>>though the
>>> > >> festival is the self-same one. Different people see it and
>>>participate in
>>> > >> it differently.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Does that help?
>>> > >> Andy
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> At 06:24 PM 1/01/2008 -0800, you wrote:
>>> > >>> Andy,
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> This definition of culture as mediating artefcts given in
>>>your message:
>>> > >>> "an artefact is what it is only in connection with its use
>>>in a certain
>>> > >>> range of activities with a certain meaning."
>>> > >>> simply moves the problem onto "a certain meaning".
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Coud you explain how to distinguish meaning from
>>>meaninglessness and
>>> > >>> how it is possible to separate the meanings from the
>>>activities in which
>>> > >>> ?it? is inscribed.
>>> > >>> .
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Paul
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>> > >>> Paul,
>>> > >>> my understanding is that in the CHAT tradition, "culture" has
>>>a specific
>>> > >>> meaning, being the sum of artefacts produced and consumed by
>>>a group of
>>> > >>> people, inclusive of the understanding that an artefact is
>>>what it is only
>>> > >>> in connection with its use in a certain range of activities
>>>with a certain
>>> > >>> meaning.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Nevertheless, the use of the word to indicate the *society*
>>>(as a
>>> > >>> continuing self-reproducing collectivity of communities)
>>>which produces and
>>> > >>> consumes the given collection of artefacts is so deeply
>>>embedded, I think
>>> > >>> that we have to accept that as a legitimate usage of the
>>>word. Mike is the
>>> > >>> person who has defined "cultural psychology" so maybe Mike
>>>will tell us
>>> > >>> what he means?
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Andy
>>> > >>> At 04:35 PM 1/01/2008 -0800, you wrote:
>>> > >>>> great, but would someone please tell me exactly what
>>>"culture" means.
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>> Paul
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>> Andy Blunden wrote:
>>> > >>>> Sure.
>>> > >>>> Andy
>>> > >>>> At 10:43 PM 1/01/2008 +0000, you wrote:
>>> > >>>>> Andy
>>> > >>>>> ... why not "cultural psychology"?
>>> > >>>>>
>>> > >>>>> Luísa Aires
>>> > >>>>>
>>> > >>>>>> Good question Mike. I never thought about that, and it is
>>>certainly in
>>> > >>>>>> ignorance of how these terms are used in academia generally.
>>> > >>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>> I suppose by 'social psychology' I mean a current of
>>>psychology which
>>> > >>>>>> utilises a concept of 'extended mind' as its foundational
>>>principle.
>>> > >>>> It is
>>> > >>>>>> always the case that other currents contribute insights
>>>which are
>>> > >>> not so
>>> > >>>>>> easily accessible from one's own (so to speak) - even if
>>>you don't
>>> > >>> accept
>>> > >>>>>> the principles of Psychoanalysis, there are still things
>>>to learn
>>> > >>>> from it;
>>> > >>>>>> and the same goes for all currents and schools of
>>>psychology. But by
>>> > >>>>>> 'social psychology' I mean a real psychology, that is
>>>practical and
>>> > >>>> useful
>>> > >>>>>> in dealing with psychological problems and copes with the
>>>reality of
>>> > >>>>>> individual difference and so on. A 'social psychology'
>>>which sees
>>> > >>>>>> individuals as purely and simply instances of their social
>>>position
>>> > >>> does
>>> > >>>>>> not warrant the name in my opinion. And 'social
>>>psychology' in the
>>> > >>> sense
>>> > >>>>>> that Max Horkheimer (I think) used it, which deal only
>>>with the
>>> > >>> phenomena
>>> > >>>>>> of crowds and so on, is also 'not worthy' of the name.
>>> > >>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>> So I am looking for a tool which can give me a way of
>>>understanding how
>>> > >>>>>> the
>>> > >>>>>> Zeitgeist is formed, how it is changed, practically how to
>>>intervene in
>>> > >>>>>> it.
>>> > >>>>>> I do not expect a 'social psychology' to go further and
>>>provide me
>>> > >>> with a
>>> > >>>>>> social or political theory as such, but it need to be able
>>>to
>>> > >>> bridge the
>>> > >>>>>> gap, so to speak. Let's face it! If we can change the
>>>Zeitgeist which
>>> > >>>> gets
>>> > >>>>>> people like George W Bush and John Howard elected in
>>>democratic
>>> > >>>> countries,
>>> > >>>>>> into one in which genuinely good people get elected, then
>>>the rest will
>>> > >>>>>> look after itself and I can enjoy my retirement.
>>> > >>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>> Why not a meta-psychology? Apart form my idiosyncratic
>>>dislike of
>>> > >>>> "meta" I
>>> > >>>>>> don't want a metapsychology, I want a psychology which has a
>>> > >>>>>> metapsychology
>>> > >>>>>> which is sound and able to cope with the sociality of
>>>consciousness.
>>> > >>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>> Why not a "science of human nature"? "Human nature" is
>>>such a
>>> > >>> problematic
>>> > >>>>>> term, it carries such a lot of unwanted 19th century
>>>baggage. And I am
>>> > >>>>>> interested in consciousness, not "nature" in general.
>>> > >>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>> Sure, social psychology is a sub-discipline within
>>>psychology.
>>> > >>> There are
>>> > >>>>>> things which belong to psychology which are not centre- stage
>>> for me.
>>> > >>>> Sure,
>>> > >>>>>> brain injury or other defects are a serious topic, as is
>>>child
>>> > >>>>>> development,
>>> > >>>>>> etc., etc.. I guess I am talking about a psychology whose
>>>central
>>> > >>> thread
>>> > >>>>>> is
>>> > >>>>>> a social psychology rather than a neurobiology, for example.
>>> > >>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>> I need a social psychology which recognises that social
>>>movements
>>> > >>> are not
>>> > >>>>>> just large numbers of people with the same feeling, but
>>>subjects, and
>>> > >>>>>> individuals are neither passive victims of social
>>>processes nor
>>> > >>>> absolutely
>>> > >>>>>> free agents. But a *real*, practical, living school of
>>>psychology, with
>>> > >>>>>> people using it in designing curricula, healing depressed
>>>people,
>>> > >>> running
>>> > >>>>>> half-way houses, training teachers, organising self-help
>>>groups, etc.,
>>> > >>>>>> etc.
>>> > >>>>>> and doing real, experimental science with it, critiquing and
>>> > >>>> improving its
>>> > >>>>>> concepts down the years.
>>> > >>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>> Does that make sense?
>>> > >>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>> Andy
>>> > >>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>> At 05:14 PM 30/12/2007 -0800, you wrote:
>>> > >>>>>>> Andy-- This is the second time you have declared your
>>>goal to be
>>> > >>>>>>> answering
>>> > >>>>>>> questions within the framework of social psychology. Why
>>>do you use
>>> > >>> this
>>> > >>>>>>> term? Why not a
>>> > >>>>>>> meta-psychology? Why not a "science of human nature"?
>>> > >>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>> I ask because I am used to social psychology being viewed
>>>as a
>>> > >>>>>>> sub-discipline within psychology.
>>> > >>>>>>> The only dept of social psych I know of that takes on
>>>your questions
>>> > >>>>>>> seriously is at the LSE. One branch of cultural
>>>psychology in the US
>>> > >>>>>>> comes
>>> > >>>>>>> out of experimental social
>>> > >>>>>>> psychology here, but I do not think you have that in mind.
>>> > >>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>> This query is not to distract from the main line of
>>>discussion, but
>>> > >>>>>>> rather
>>> > >>>>>>> to locate what you are striving for better.
>>> > >>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>> mike
>>> > >>>>>>> On Dec 30, 2007 4:34 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>>> > >>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>>> I think David and Peg's messages were out of sync., yes?
>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>>> This all raises that most difficult of questions for a
>>>social
>>> > >>>>>>> psychology
>>> > >>>>>>>> that wants to deal with the tasks I am asking it to deal
>>>with,
>>> > >>> how do
>>> > >>>>>>> you
>>> > >>>>>>>> deal with the knock-on effect of an action, which is
>>>predictable
>>> > >>> from
>>> > >>>>>>>> on-high, but unknown to the actors themselves? We rely
>>>on the basic
>>> > >>>>>>>> insight
>>> > >>>>>>>> that what goes on in the head first went on between
>>>people - whether
>>> > >>>>>>> in
>>> > >>>>>>>> the
>>> > >>>>>>>> form given to it by Fichte, Hegel, Marx, CS Peirce or
>>>Vygotsky. What
>>> > >>>>>>> is
>>> > >>>>>>>> Hegel's Logic about? About the underlying "logic of
>>>events", how
>>> > >>> this
>>> > >>>>>>> or
>>> > >>>>>>>> that policy or statement or whatever ultimately leads to
>>>this or
>>> > >>> that
>>> > >>>>>>>> problem which was at first invisible. Life experience
>>>will tell you
>>> > >>>>>>> this,
>>> > >>>>>>>> but if you don't have life experience, it will happen
>>>according
>>> > >>> to the
>>> > >>>>>>>> logic of events anyways and you should learn. Basically,
>>>I think we
>>> > >>>>>>> can
>>> > >>>>>>>> only make sense of this if we get right away from the
>>>idea of the
>>> > >>>>>>>> "individual-as-subject" but remember that no subject
>>>exists
>>> > >>> other than
>>> > >>>>>>> in
>>> > >>>>>>>> and through individual human beings.
>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>>> With the ANL example of the child and the father, I have
>>>always had
>>> > >>>>>>>> trouble
>>> > >>>>>>>> with "examples" and methods which presuppose a leader or a
>>> > >>> father or a
>>> > >>>>>>>> facilitator, a person who knows what the experimental
>>>subject or
>>> > >>>>>>> student
>>> > >>>>>>>> or
>>> > >>>>>>>> self-help group really needs to do, and organises things
>>> > >>> accordingly.
>>> > >>>>>>> Of
>>> > >>>>>>>> course, I understand that all you teachers and teacher-
>>> trainers,
>>> > >>> child
>>> > >>>>>>>> psychologists, etc., work and have a responsibility to
>>>work in
>>> > >>>>>>> precisely
>>> > >>>>>>>> that circumstance. But I do not think this is the
>>>paradigmatic
>>> > >>>>>>>> relationship. The father can only do his bit in
>>>"leading" the child
>>> > >>>>>>> into
>>> > >>>>>>>> an
>>> > >>>>>>>> activity where its "best interests" will be served if
>>>the father can
>>> > >>>>>>> act
>>> > >>>>>>>> as
>>> > >>>>>>>> a kind of transmitter of life experience, and kind of
>>>short-cut the
>>> > >>>>>>>> process
>>> > >>>>>>>> for the child. So it is not the father's technique which
>>>is the
>>> > >>>>>>> paradigm,
>>> > >>>>>>>> but the bitter life experience which the child may or
>>>may not
>>> > >>> have as
>>> > >>>>>>> a
>>> > >>>>>>>> result of choosing to do this or that.
>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>>> Andy
>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>>> At 07:54 AM 30/12/2007 -0800, you wrote:
>>> > >>>>>>>>> Dear Andy and Peg:
>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>>>> Here's some stuff from my notes; I happen to know that
>>>Andy can't
>>> > >>>>>>> get
>>> > >>>>>>>>> ahold of a copy of ANL's Problems of the Development of
>>>the
>>> > >>> Mind. I
>>> > >>>>>>> hope
>>> > >>>>>>>>> I don't get those funny marks that always show up when
>>>I paste
>>> > >>> in...
>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>>>> p. 402 ANL points out how 'only understandable' motives
>>>for
>>> > >>>>>>> homework
>>> > >>>>>>>>> such as wanting to get a good mark can be replaced by
>>>'really
>>> > >>>>>>> effective'
>>> > >>>>>>>>> motives such as doing it so you can go out to play.
>>>However, after
>>> > >>>>>>> some
>>> > >>>>>>>>> weeks of really effective motives, it is also possible
>>>that the
>>> > >>>>>>> child
>>> > >>>>>>>>> will find that the only understandable motives become
>>>really
>>> > >>>>>>> effective,
>>> > >>>>>>>>> e.g. the child will leave off doing homework because
>>>it¡¯s untidy
>>> > >>>>>>> and
>>> > >>>>>>>> the
>>> > >>>>>>>>> child is now afraid of getting a bad mark.
>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>>>> p. 403: ANL writes: 'It is a matter of an action¡¯s
>>>result being
>>> > >>>>>>> more
>>> > >>>>>>>>> significant in certain conditions than the motive that
>>>actually
>>> > >>>>>>> induces
>>> > >>>>>>>>> it. The child begins doing its homework conscientiously
>>>because it
>>> > >>>>>>> wants
>>> > >>>>>>>>> to go out quickly and play. In the end this leads to
>>>much more not
>>> > >>>>>>>> simply
>>> > >>>>>>>>> that it will get the chance to go and play but also
>>>that it
>>> > >>> will get
>>> > >>>>>>> a
>>> > >>>>>>>>> good mark. A new "objectivation" of its needs come
>>>about which
>>> > >>> means
>>> > >>>>>>>> they
>>> > >>>>>>>>> are understood at a higher level.'
>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>>>> 'The transition to a new leading activity differs from
>>>the process
>>> > >>>>>>>>> described simply in the really effective motives
>>>becoming in the
>>> > >>>>>>> case of
>>> > >>>>>>>>> a change of leading activity, those understandable
>>>motives that
>>> > >>>>>>> exist in
>>> > >>>>>>>>> the sphere of relations characterizing the place the
>>>child can
>>> > >>>>>>> occupy
>>> > >>>>>>>>> only in the next higher stage of development rather
>>>than in the
>>> > >>>>>>> sphere
>>> > >>>>>>>> of
>>> > >>>>>>>>> relations in which it still actually is. The
>>>preparation of these
>>> > >>>>>>>>> transitions therefore takes a long time because it is
>>> > >>> necessary for
>>> > >>>>>>> the
>>> > >>>>>>>>> child to become quite fully aware of a sphere of
>>>relations
>>> > >>> that are
>>> > >>>>>>> new
>>> > >>>>>>>>> for it.¡±
>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>>>> ANL compares a child¡¯s performance in a school play
>>>with the
>>> > >>>>>>> child¡¯s
>>> > >>>>>>>>> learning of study as an independent activity. The child
>>>begins the
>>> > >>>>>>>> school
>>> > >>>>>>>>> play as an assignment, and later continues for the
>>>approbation the
>>> > >>>>>>> child
>>> > >>>>>>>>> receives during a successful performance. As with
>>>learning to
>>> > >>> study
>>> > >>>>>>> for
>>> > >>>>>>>> a
>>> > >>>>>>>>> good mark instead of just studying for the opportunity
>>>to go
>>> > >>> out and
>>> > >>>>>>>>> play, a ¡°merely understandable¡± motive has now become
>>>¡°really
>>> > >>>>>>>>> effective¡± and a new activity is established.
>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>>>> But only in the case of independent study (according to
>>>ANL) is
>>> > >>>>>>> the
>>> > >>>>>>>> new
>>> > >>>>>>>>> activity developmentally significant (¡°objectively¡±)
>>>because the
>>> > >>>>>>> child
>>> > >>>>>>>>> is not going to become a professional dramatist (if the
>>>child
>>> > >>> were,
>>> > >>>>>>> then
>>> > >>>>>>>>> the performance in the play would be study). Thus only
>>>in the
>>> > >>> latter
>>> > >>>>>>>> case
>>> > >>>>>>>>> can we say there is a new leading activity.
>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>>>> Here's what I make of this:
>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>>>> a) ANL really does NOT interrogate the subject as to
>>>the object
>>> > >>>>>>>>> orientation of the activity: the object (study, the
>>>completed
>>> > >>> play)
>>> > >>>>>>> is
>>> > >>>>>>>>> indeed given in advance. As far as ANL is concerned, ONLY
>>> > >>> Chaiklin's
>>> > >>>>>>>>> "objective" ZPD exists, and there is NO subjective ZPD.
>>>But Andy's
>>> > >>>>>>> idea
>>> > >>>>>>>>> of "immanent critique" is NOT an objective critique; it
>>>has to do
>>> > >>>>>>> with
>>> > >>>>>>>>> following up (just like Sarah's) the subject's way of
>>>seeing
>>> > >>> things
>>> > >>>>>>> and
>>> > >>>>>>>>> seeing where it leads.
>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>>>> b) In the development discussion (San Diego-Helsinki)
>>>Dr. Olga
>>> > >>>>>>> Vasquez
>>> > >>>>>>>>> raised the question of whether "leading activity" is
>>>the same as
>>> > >>>>>>>>> "neoformation", and Dr. Pentti Harakarainnen really did
>>>not answer
>>> > >>>>>>> it
>>> > >>>>>>>> and
>>> > >>>>>>>>> instead talked about Dr. Engestrom's even more general
>>>concept of
>>> > >>>>>>>>> activity. But here we can see that "leading activity" and
>>> > >>>>>>> "neoformation"
>>> > >>>>>>>>> are quite different: LSV used "neoformation" to talk
>>>about
>>> > >>>>>>> transitional
>>> > >>>>>>>>> structures during crisis periods that COMPLETELY
>>>disappear (for
>>> > >>>>>>> example,
>>> > >>>>>>>>> the child's autonomous speech at one and the child's
>>> > >>> "negativism" at
>>> > >>>>>>>>> three) as well as neoformations which become the
>>>leading activity
>>> > >>>>>>> during
>>> > >>>>>>>>> normal growth. Only the latter is a "leading activity"
>>>for ANL.
>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>>>> c) There is still a STRONG behaviorist streak in ANL's
>>>reasoning:
>>> > >>>>>>> the
>>> > >>>>>>>>> difference between the "really effective" and "merely
>>>understood"
>>> > >>>>>>>>> reasoning can very easily be described, in ALL of ANL's
>>> > >>> examples, as
>>> > >>>>>>> a
>>> > >>>>>>>>> simple lengthening of the time distance between the
>>>behavior
>>> > >>> and the
>>> > >>>>>>>>> positive reinforcement. Bruner, in a quote that I have
>>>long since
>>> > >>>>>>> lost,
>>> > >>>>>>>>> suggests that development can be described this way,
>>>but I don't
>>> > >>>>>>> think
>>> > >>>>>>>>> LSV ever would have done so: for LSV the key thing
>>>about humans is
>>> > >>>>>>> that
>>> > >>>>>>>>> they are dogs that can ring their own bells.
>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>> > >>>>>>>>> Seoul National University of Education
>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------
>>> > >>>>>>>>> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast
>>>with Yahoo!
>>> > >>>>>>>> Search.
>>> > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> > >>>>>>>>> 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
>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> > >>>>>>> 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
>>> > >>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>
>>> > >>>>>
>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> > >>>>> 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
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> 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
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 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
>>> > >>
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > > Geoffrey Binder
>>> > > BA (SS) La Trobe, BArch (Hons) RMIT
>>> > > PhD Candidate
>>> > > Global Studies, Social Sciences and Planning RMIT
>>> > > Ph B. 9925 9951
>>> > > M. 0422 968 567
>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > 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
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Geoffrey Binder
>>>BA (SS) La Trobe, BArch (Hons) RMIT
>>>PhD Candidate
>>>Global Studies, Social Sciences and Planning RMIT
>>>Ph B. 9925 9951
>>>M. 0422 968 567
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 Wed Jan 2 18:33 PST 2008