Re: [xmca] PoTAYto and PoTAHto

From: Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei who-is-at>
Date: Tue Oct 14 2008 - 15:41:29 PDT

Dear Michael Roth,
You say :
[So the other is a requirement in the general laws for all higher 
psychological functions.]
I know you as a proponent of the activity theory . Now as far as this theory is concerned , if work activity were not , if the generalized activity emanating from the work activity were not , if the object of activity were not , if the mediational tools were not , if the circular processes of activities were not , if the plane of the ideality were not , if the finished product or the process of reification were not , if language as the vector of the process of activity and not just as means of communication were not , if consciousness produced by the process of activity were not , if self-consciousness , will , attention , memory all coming from the activity process as the subjective reflection of the object world were not , would
* other * yet have meant the same as the above does ? Don't you believe this I , self , the other , and then the collective have come into existence through work activity , labour process ? Deny all this , still grasping to the activity theory or what Marx says about Feuerbach ?
And who said * all higher psychological functions * came into being just through the association of one to another or just through cultural mediation ? Many a time this question has been put forth : If culture is the sole and the original and the initiating former , then should we take it as some philosophical premise * a priori * or take it just as something given ? or take the whole evolutionary process with * culture * ?
If I'm mistaken as you being ascribed to the activity theory , my deep apologies .

--- On Tue, 10/14/08, Wolff-Michael Roth <> wrote:

From: Wolff-Michael Roth <>
Subject: Re: [xmca] PoTAYto and PoTAHto
To:, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <>
Date: Tuesday, October 14, 2008, 7:44 PM

here what Vygotsky (1989, 58) writes about the role of the other:

Consider: a letter is to oneself in time and to another; to read
one's own jottings, to write for oneself, means to relate to oneself
as to another, etc. This is a general law for all higher psychological

So the other is a requirement in the general laws for all higher
psychological functions.



On 14-Oct-08, at 7:37 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:

I just want to know who this fellow Other is. He seems to be a
powerful character.
andy wrote:
> Sounds very much like the Tao, Michael.
> Wolff-
> Michael
> Roth To: Steve Gabosch
> <>
> <> cc: "eXtended Mind,
> Culture, Activity"
> <> Sent
> by: Subject: Re: [xmca] PoTAYto and
> PoTAHto
> xmca-
> bounces@web
> 10/14/2008
> 09:22
> AM
> Please
> respond
> to
> "eXtended
> Mind,
> Culture,
> Activity"
> Steve,
> it is not just that we strive but that we are part of worldly and
> world-generating events that we have no control over; but this is
> only the effect of the radical passivity that characterizes our
> experience----even if David does not want to admit to it. In the very
> process of writing these words, I am absolutely active writing the
> sentence to become what it will be and absolutely passive with
> respect to the language I realize in writing, for it is a language
> that has come to me from the other, which I use for the other, and
> which therefore returns to the other (pace Derrida). With respect to
> the functioning of the language, the meaning that straddles the
> writer of these lines with the Other more generally, and many other
> things are totally out of my control while they are within. We cannot
> think agency, the fact of writing, without also attending to the
> radically passive elements that come with language, with
> understanding, etc.
> "I . . . I . . . I" there is an ideology that I can do all, that
if I
> want I can lift the earth, become a creator of myself . . .. It is an
> ideology (in the positive sense of the word) that is especially
> characteristic of the US (where any hint of assisting the collective
> is stamped and branded as "socialism")
> Michael
> On 14-Oct-08, at 6:13 AM, Steve Gabosch wrote:
> The solution in my mind is that we need to strive to be collective in
> our approach - while individually we sway, in groups we stand a
> better chance against the winds and storms that buffet us in all
> directions. One of course needs to choose the right group that
> corresponds to their core sense of the world, and the right group for
> one's group to work within, perhaps ultimately entailing numerous
> nested groups, (not all of our choice) and then changing groups as
> needed (when possible), but even within such complex situations, we
> still need to rely on others to help us guide ourselves. This means
> needing to cultivate a strong sense of cooperation and teamwork that
> is mixed with straightforward (while hopefully tactful) criticism,
> with the goal of mutual growth and empowerment. (That sounds a bit
> starry-eyed, I admit, but what the hell - cynicism is too easy).
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list

Andy Blunden +61 3 9380 9435 Skype  
Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy Blunden:
xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list
Received on Tue Oct 14 15:43 PDT 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Sep 18 2009 - 07:30:00 PDT