Hello,
Is it possible to reach this article "Marxist and non-Marxist
aspects of the
cultural historical psychology of L.S. Vygotsky" via email please?
Thank you.
Ulvi
On 18/02/2009, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
Perhaps I could risk throwing in my thoughts Mike, because David
and I have
discussed this in the past too.
My understanding has been that LSV brought forward the concept of
word
meaning as a foundation for solving the problem of intelligent
speech. I am
not sure how wide that territory was for Vygotsky; self-evidently I
think it
is wider that simply "intelligent speech", but there are two
reasons I would
not go so far as to say that it was meant as a "unit of analysis of
human
consciousness".
(1) Words are probably the most important of artefacts, but they
are just
one kind of artefact. My work with "teaching spaces" when I first
started to
use Vygotsky was to do with how building forms succeeded in
transmitting
theories of learning to future generations, despite books and papers
claiming the opposite of what was set in concrete.
(2) Apart from artefacts, is also activity. Doubtbless activity is
implicit
in meaning in some way, but it is unclear to me. I think it is a
mistake to
make the foundation of consciousness just words, rather than
practice.
Andy
Mike Cole wrote:
Without the time (or skill to switch to cyrrilic!) I have been
thinking
about Kolya's questions, ,David.
For those who forget in the stream of xcma chatting, Nikolai asks:
where Vygotsky posits word meaning as
unit of analysis of human consciousness?
In which text and on what page? From what Vygotsky's work it is
taken?
Could
I ask you to make a quotation from Vygotsky?
Thank you in advance
Nikolai
I was thinking how nice it would be to know how to search the
vygotsky
corpus online in Russian, which I do not know how to do.
And remembering fragments of why I thought David's comments
resonated
strongly
with my own intuitions, formed in part, by LSV.
such as (no quotations or page numbers, just failing memory here):
meaning is the most stable form of sense-- every totally stable?
really?
word meaning changes in development
the closing of *Speech and Thought *that David points to, the drop
of
water,
perhaps,
being in my eye.
The citation of the fragment from Doestoevsky where a bunch of
guys are
standing
around saying, it seems, the word "product of defecation" (oh
poo!) and
every one
is using the same word and every one is both saying the same thing
and
saying something different.
Don't all of these and many other examples (Paula, are the
Sakharov -LSV
blocks of any help here?) point to the general conclusion that
David was
asserting?
Might our Russian friends join Nikolai and help us to understand
the core
of
the issue
David raised? Is he incorrect? Can you search the corpus and help
us to
understand
if we are misleading each other?
mike
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:26 PM, David Kellogg
<vaughndogblack@yahoo.com
wrote:
Dear Professor Veresov:
Let me begin by saying how much we enjoy your work here in Korea.
Our
group
has been discussing your 2005 "Outlines" article "Marxist and non-
Marxist
aspects of the cultural historical psychology of L.S. Vygotsky"
since we
read it last year, and I found your 2006 article "Leading
activity in
developmental psychology" very useful in figuring out why I don't
accept
the
whole construct of "leading activity".
I think that BOTH works are really quite central to the
periodization
problem under discussion, but I also think that BOTH works refer
mainly
and
centrally (and thus for me somewhat misleadingly) to a period of
Vygotsky's
oeuvre that is quite different from the one I have in mind.
The 2005 article places a good deal of stress on early Vygotsky, a
Vygotsky
who is almost non-Vygotskyan, or at least non-psychological,
Vygotsky in
his
early twenties, a student of the humanities with a very strong
sense that
nothing human is alien to them.
The 2006 article in contrast seems to me to place a great deal of
stress
on
the post-Vygotsky period, and I was very surprised and pleased to
read
that
the work on "leading activity" is really not as far as I had
thought from
the fragments LSV left behind in his unfinished "Child
Development".
Elkonin, at any rate, seems to have been fully aware that the
"leading
activity" is in no way typical or characteristic of a particular
period
(though Leontiev and lately Karpov have said exactly the
opposite). The
problem remains that I do not see any place for the crisis in
this work,
and
there is no question but that MY Vygotsky, LATE Vygotsky, the
Vygotsky of
Thinking and Speech gives the crisis an absolutely central (one
might
even
say a critical) role.
Of course, when I said that word meaning is a unit of analysis
for human
consciousness I am not simply repeating what others have said (e.g.
Werstch
1985). On the contrary, I mean what for me is the most mature and
therefore
in some ways least characteristic moment of Vygotsky's own work;
I might
even call it the "leading activity" of his thinking.
I meant, especially, the very last three paragraphs of Thinking and
Speech.
I have always found this to be a little like the last page of
"Origin of
Species", rather more than a conclusion, but a whole revolutionary
program,
complete with a clarion call in the very last six words:
п·я│п╪я▀я│п╩п╣п╫п╫п╬п╣ я│п╩п╬п╡п╬ п╣я│я┌я▄ п╪п╦п╨я─п╬п╨п╬я│п╪
я┤п╣п╩п╬п╡п╣я┤п╣я│п╨п╬пЁп╬ я│п╬п╥п╫п╟п╫п╦я▐.
David Kellogg
Seoul National University of Education.
_______________________________________________
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/ +61 3 9380 9435 Skype
andy.blunden
Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy Blunden:
http://www.marxists.org/admin/books/index.htm
_______________________________________________
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
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:15:20 -0800
From: "Monica Hansen" <monica.hansen@vandals.uidaho.edu>
Subject: RE: [xmca] Re: xmca Digest, Vol 45, Issue 47
To: "'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP874EA415B1EF023A4ACD32C5B50@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="KOI8-R"
Is anything in Vygotsky counter to discourse and pragmatics? My take is
that
Vygotsky suggested word meaning as the unit of analysis in the concrete
sense(a specific example) of a more general concept for approaching the
study of development. I'm still studying...
Monica R. Hansen
Graduate Teaching Assistant
Curriculum and Instruction
College of Education
University of Idaho
1000 W. Hubbard
Suite 242
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
Phone: 208-667-2588, ext. 123
Email: monica.hansen@vandals.uidaho.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
Behalf Of Joe
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 1:02 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Cc: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu; eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: xmca Digest, Vol 45, Issue 47
I've always been bothered by word meaning as the basic unit. It is
more "cognitive" than I think was intended. Broadening the concept to
discourse a la wertsch/bakhtin opens the ideas to inter to intra and
to dialogic space, adressivity, audience, external/internal speech and
seems to link to many more Vygotskian concepts than does word meaning
alone.
On Feb 18, 2009, at 2:47 AM, ulvi icil <ulvi.icil@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
Is it possible to reach this article "Marxist and non-Marxist
aspects of the
cultural historical psychology of L.S. Vygotsky" via email please?
Thank you.
Ulvi
On 18/02/2009, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
Perhaps I could risk throwing in my thoughts Mike, because David
and I have
discussed this in the past too.
My understanding has been that LSV brought forward the concept of
word
meaning as a foundation for solving the problem of intelligent
speech. I am
not sure how wide that territory was for Vygotsky; self-evidently I
think it
is wider that simply "intelligent speech", but there are two
reasons I would
not go so far as to say that it was meant as a "unit of analysis of
human
consciousness".
(1) Words are probably the most important of artefacts, but they
are just
one kind of artefact. My work with "teaching spaces" when I first
started to
use Vygotsky was to do with how building forms succeeded in
transmitting
theories of learning to future generations, despite books and papers
claiming the opposite of what was set in concrete.
(2) Apart from artefacts, is also activity. Doubtbless activity is
implicit
in meaning in some way, but it is unclear to me. I think it is a
mistake to
make the foundation of consciousness just words, rather than
practice.
Andy
Mike Cole wrote:
Without the time (or skill to switch to cyrrilic!) I have been
thinking
about Kolya's questions, ,David.
For those who forget in the stream of xcma chatting, Nikolai asks:
where Vygotsky posits word meaning as
unit of analysis of human consciousness?
In which text and on what page? From what Vygotsky's work it is
taken?
Could
I ask you to make a quotation from Vygotsky?
Thank you in advance
Nikolai
I was thinking how nice it would be to know how to search the
vygotsky
corpus online in Russian, which I do not know how to do.
And remembering fragments of why I thought David's comments
resonated
strongly
with my own intuitions, formed in part, by LSV.
such as (no quotations or page numbers, just failing memory here):
meaning is the most stable form of sense-- every totally stable?
really?
word meaning changes in development
the closing of *Speech and Thought *that David points to, the drop
of
water,
perhaps,
being in my eye.
The citation of the fragment from Doestoevsky where a bunch of
guys are
standing
around saying, it seems, the word "product of defecation" (oh
poo!) and
every one
is using the same word and every one is both saying the same thing
and
saying something different.
Don't all of these and many other examples (Paula, are the
Sakharov -LSV
blocks of any help here?) point to the general conclusion that
David was
asserting?
Might our Russian friends join Nikolai and help us to understand
the core
of
the issue
David raised? Is he incorrect? Can you search the corpus and help
us to
understand
if we are misleading each other?
mike
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:26 PM, David Kellogg
<vaughndogblack@yahoo.com
wrote:
Dear Professor Veresov:
Let me begin by saying how much we enjoy your work here in Korea.
Our
group
has been discussing your 2005 "Outlines" article "Marxist and non-
Marxist
aspects of the cultural historical psychology of L.S. Vygotsky"
since we
read it last year, and I found your 2006 article "Leading
activity in
developmental psychology" very useful in figuring out why I don't
accept
the
whole construct of "leading activity".
I think that BOTH works are really quite central to the
periodization
problem under discussion, but I also think that BOTH works refer
mainly
and
centrally (and thus for me somewhat misleadingly) to a period of
Vygotsky's
oeuvre that is quite different from the one I have in mind.
The 2005 article places a good deal of stress on early Vygotsky, a
Vygotsky
who is almost non-Vygotskyan, or at least non-psychological,
Vygotsky in
his
early twenties, a student of the humanities with a very strong
sense that
nothing human is alien to them.
The 2006 article in contrast seems to me to place a great deal of
stress
on
the post-Vygotsky period, and I was very surprised and pleased to
read
that
the work on "leading activity" is really not as far as I had
thought from
the fragments LSV left behind in his unfinished "Child
Development".
Elkonin, at any rate, seems to have been fully aware that the
"leading
activity" is in no way typical or characteristic of a particular
period
(though Leontiev and lately Karpov have said exactly the
opposite). The
problem remains that I do not see any place for the crisis in
this work,
and
there is no question but that MY Vygotsky, LATE Vygotsky, the
Vygotsky of
Thinking and Speech gives the crisis an absolutely central (one
might
even
say a critical) role.
Of course, when I said that word meaning is a unit of analysis
for human
consciousness I am not simply repeating what others have said (e.g.
Werstch
1985). On the contrary, I mean what for me is the most mature and
therefore
in some ways least characteristic moment of Vygotsky's own work;
I might
even call it the "leading activity" of his thinking.
I meant, especially, the very last three paragraphs of Thinking and
Speech.
I have always found this to be a little like the last page of
"Origin of
Species", rather more than a conclusion, but a whole revolutionary
program,
complete with a clarion call in the very last six words:
Осмысленное слово есть микрокосм
человеческого сознания.
David Kellogg
Seoul National University of Education.
_______________________________________________
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/ +61 3 9380 9435 Skype
andy.blunden
Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy Blunden:
http://www.marxists.org/admin/books/index.htm
_______________________________________________
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
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:28:14 -0500
From: Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: xmca Digest, Vol 45, Issue 47
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID: <C5C1E79E.1E73B%packer@duq.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1251
But Andy, if we're following Ilyenkov's lead, don't words have an ideal
character that activity lacks?
Martin
On 2/17/09 9:11 PM, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
(2) Apart from artefacts, is also activity. Doubtbless
activity is implicit in meaning in some way, but it is
unclear to me. I think it is a mistake to make the
foundation of consciousness just words, rather than practice.
Andy
Mike Cole wrote:
Without the time (or skill to switch to cyrrilic!) I have been thinking
about Kolya's questions, ,David.
For those who forget in the stream of xcma chatting, Nikolai asks:
where Vygotsky posits word meaning as
unit of analysis of human consciousness?
In which text and on what page? From what Vygotsky's work it is taken?
Could
I ask you to make a quotation from Vygotsky?
Thank you in advance
Nikolai
I was thinking how nice it would be to know how to search the vygotsky
corpus online in Russian, which I do not know how to do.
And remembering fragments of why I thought David's comments resonated
strongly
with my own intuitions, formed in part, by LSV.
such as (no quotations or page numbers, just failing memory here):
meaning is the most stable form of sense-- every totally stable? really?
word meaning changes in development
the closing of *Speech and Thought *that David points to, the drop of
water,
perhaps,
being in my eye.
The citation of the fragment from Doestoevsky where a bunch of guys are
standing
around saying, it seems, the word "product of defecation" (oh poo!) and
every one
is using the same word and every one is both saying the same thing and
saying something different.
Don't all of these and many other examples (Paula, are the Sakharov -LSV
blocks of any help here?) point to the general conclusion that David was
asserting?
Might our Russian friends join Nikolai and help us to understand the
core of
the issue
David raised? Is he incorrect? Can you search the corpus and help us to
understand
if we are misleading each other?
mike
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:26 PM, David Kellogg
<vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>wrote:
Dear Professor Veresov:
Let me begin by saying how much we enjoy your work here in Korea. Our
group
has been discussing your 2005 "Outlines" article "Marxist and
non-Marxist
aspects of the cultural historical psychology of L.S. Vygotsky" since
we
read it last year, and I found your 2006 article "Leading activity in
developmental psychology" very useful in figuring out why I don't
accept the
whole construct of "leading activity".
I think that BOTH works are really quite central to the periodization
problem under discussion, but I also think that BOTH works refer mainly
and
centrally (and thus for me somewhat misleadingly) to a period of
Vygotsky's
oeuvre that is quite different from the one I have in mind.
The 2005 article places a good deal of stress on early Vygotsky, a
Vygotsky
who is almost non-Vygotskyan, or at least non-psychological, Vygotsky
in his
early twenties, a student of the humanities with a very strong sense
that
nothing human is alien to them.
The 2006 article in contrast seems to me to place a great deal of
stress on
the post-Vygotsky period, and I was very surprised and pleased to read
that
the work on "leading activity" is really not as far as I had thought
from
the fragments LSV left behind in his unfinished "Child Development".
Elkonin, at any rate, seems to have been fully aware that the "leading
activity" is in no way typical or characteristic of a particular period
(though Leontiev and lately Karpov have said exactly the opposite). The
problem remains that I do not see any place for the crisis in this
work, and
there is no question but that MY Vygotsky, LATE Vygotsky, the Vygotsky
of
Thinking and Speech gives the crisis an absolutely central (one might
even
say a critical) role.
Of course, when I said that word meaning is a unit of analysis for
human
consciousness I am not simply repeating what others have said (e.g.
Werstch
1985). On the contrary, I mean what for me is the most mature and
therefore
in some ways least characteristic moment of Vygotsky's own work; I
might
even call it the "leading activity" of his thinking.
I meant, especially, the very last three paragraphs of Thinking and
Speech.
I have always found this to be a little like the last page of "Origin
of
Species", rather more than a conclusion, but a whole revolutionary
program,
complete with a clarion call in the very last six words:
нЯЛШЯКЕММНЕ ЯКНБН ЕЯРЭ ЛХЙПНЙНЯЛ ВЕКНБЕВЕЯЙНЦН ЯНГМЮМХЪ.
David Kellogg
Seoul National University of Education.
_______________________________________________
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
End of xmca Digest, Vol 45, Issue 56
************************************