Re: [xmca] Re: xmca Digest, Vol 45, Issue 62

[Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Nikolai-- I did not understand the message below. Might you expand, even if
it requires explaining some deep philosophical issues to us? We are seeking
mutual understanding here, not winning arguments or splitting hairs.

Just change the subject line so that we do not get pages of repetition which
we can get from the xmca archive. For example  -- Microcosm vs unit of
analysis.

thanks
mike

2009/2/19 Nikolai Veresov <nikolai.veressov@oulu.fi>

> David wrote:
>
>> It is found on p. 347 of the Labirint═edition (2005), which is═a reprint
>> of the 1934 edition that Vygotsky actually supervised.═In English, it means
>> that the meaning-laden word is a microcosm of human consciousness. I think
>> that the word "microcosm" means, here,═an irreducible, but fully complete,
>> unit.═
>>
>>  Dear David. "Microcosm" is not just a word. It is an old philosophical
> concept having long history. "Unit of analysis" is another concept with a
> long history and content. They are not the same, unfortunately. They belong
> to different philosophical traditions. Without going into deep philosophical
> considerations I just want to note that "macrocosm" cannot be devided to any
> kinds of "microcosms", whereas unit of analysis presupposes the division by
> definition.
> I believe Lev Vygotsky understood the difference.
>
> Sorry, I did not want to be impolite, I respect your country and
> traditions, hope to visit South Korea (eventially to your seminar?) Thank
> you, now I know how to speak with people and what to dress.
> Nikolai
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: <xmca-request@weber.ucsd.edu>
> To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 10:32 AM
> Subject: xmca Digest, Vol 45, Issue 62
>
>
>  Send xmca mailing list submissions to
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> xmca-request@weber.ucsd.edu
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> xmca-owner@weber.ucsd.edu
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of xmca digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>  1. Re: Re: xmca Digest, Vol 45, Issue 53 (David Kellogg)
>>  2. Re: Re: xmca Digest, Vol 45, Issue 53 (Carol Macdonald)
>>  3. Re: Re: xmca Digest, Vol 45, Issue 56 (ulvi icil)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:06:18 -0800 (PST)
>> From: David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>
>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: xmca Digest, Vol 45, Issue 53
>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>> Message-ID: <194074.31465.qm@web110307.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-5
>>
>> Dear Professor Veresov:
>> ═
>> My country, South Korea, is a rather strange place. Professors tend to
>> dress like businessmen here═(in blue suits, sometimes grey, with pinstriped
>> shirts and expensive neckties, gold watches are not unheard of).
>> ═
>> But we don't actually write business letters;═even the class═timetables I
>> get from the dean generally begin with polite remarks about my health,
>> cautionary═words about═the weather, or reminiscences about the last dinner
>> we had together.
>> ═
>> These═preambles are not pointless, and they are not simply polite. They
>> are a way of establishing who is saying what to whom; a recognition that
>> everything has to be interpersonally═contextualized to have any meaning at
>> all.
>> ═
>> My point was that I knew your work, and that I knew you had a great deal
>> to contribute to the debate on periodization, but that I also knew that you
>> were chiefly concerned with periods OTHER than the period from 1932-1934.
>> ═
>> This is═the═main period where Vygotsky═talks about a "unit of analysis"
>> and analysis into units. And sure enough, as Mike═points out, it is═a period
>> of intense preoccupation with word meaning,═particularly with the "tearing
>> away" of word meaning from the═"phasal" properties of language, by which
>> Vygotsky means the phonological properties, the part which Andy calls
>> "material"═(Thinking and Speech, 1987: 223).
>> ═
>> Thinking and Speech was called a monograph═by Luria (on p. 359), despite
>> the double title and despite the fact that its composition spans over half
>> of Vygotsky's whole career. I think Luria is right; it IS a monograph; the
>> topic of Vygotsky's monograph is neither "thinking" nor "speech" but rather
>> the conjunction "and" that links them. For Vygotsky, that "and" is
>> consciousness, and the "microcosm" of that consciousness is the
>> meaning-laden word.═
>> ═
>> I think the process of differentiating the purely sensory aspects of words
>> from their ideality is═why self-directed speech is so important═(Chapter
>> Two),═that is why the creation of interfunctional relations is actually more
>> important than the independent development of the functions
>> themselves═(Chapter Three), that is why the═merging of preverbal thinking
>> and pre-intellectual speaking can present a model for the development of
>> every higher mental function═(Chapter Four), that is why the═replacement of
>> "visual-concrete images" by "abstract relations" is the foundation of
>> conceptual thinking (Chapter═Five); that is why foreign language learning
>> and concept formation are the archetypes that Vygotsky has in mind for
>> the═zone of proximal development (Chapter Six) and it is why═thinking is
>> only realized in the word═(Chapter Seven).
>> ═
>> As you can see, I think that the idea that word meaning is the irreducible
>> unit of consciousness═permeates every single chapter of the book which was,
>> intellectually, Vygotsky's last will and testament, even though (for that
>> very reason) it cannot be considered "typical" or "characteristic" of his
>> work (merely its═culmination).
>> ═
>> You asked me for a text, and like Mike I felt rather overwhelmed, because
>> so many references seemed to cry out. How to choose? Where to begin?═And
>> what to cut?
>> ═
>> What I did was to cite the last THREE paragraphs of Thinking and Speech.
>> Of course, like a Korean academic letter, these paragraphs have to be
>> contextualized; we have to know who is saying what to whom.
>> ═
>> The last three paragraphs═have to be read as the culimination of a book,
>> and even of a life, and the last six words have to ═In the same way, the
>> last six words have to be read as the culmination of those paragraphs;
>> we═cannot simply cut them into═an epigraph═without making them═epigrammatic
>> and consequently banal.
>> ═
>> But (and this was the point of my pointless preamble)═you are in a better
>> position to recontextualize the text═than almost anyone else. I assumed
>> (from your name, and also from your remarkable erudition) that you read
>> Russian. So I felt═reasonably confident that you could place this:
>> "╬АэКАшущщчу Ашчрч уАБЛ эьзЮчзчАэ ГушчруГуАзчсч АчвщпщьО."
>> ═
>> It is found on p. 347 of the Labirint═edition (2005), which is═a reprint
>> of the 1934 edition that Vygotsky actually supervised.═In English, it means
>> that the meaning-laden word is a microcosm of human consciousness. I think
>> that the word "microcosm" means, here,═an irreducible, but fully complete,
>> unit.═
>>
>> David Kellogg
>> Seoul National University of Education
>> (Associate Professor)
>> ═
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:24:43 +0200
>> From: Carol Macdonald <carolmacdon@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: xmca Digest, Vol 45, Issue 53
>> To: vaughndogblack@yahoo.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>> Message-ID:
>> <20f7d5360902190024l365a7409ha883d5cfda0e6c0c@mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R
>>
>> David
>> Re your last paragraph, does it then mean that the "word" is a germ cell
>> model, or am I confusing two concepts from different origins?
>>
>> Perhaps people would be interested in reading the explanation about "word"
>> you gave me in a private conversation.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>> 2009/2/19 David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>
>>
>>  Dear Professor Veresov:
>>>
>>> My country, South Korea, is a rather strange place. Professors tend to
>>> dress like businessmen here (in blue suits, sometimes grey, with
>>> pinstriped
>>> shirts and expensive neckties, gold watches are not unheard of).
>>>
>>> But we don't actually write business letters; even the class timetables I
>>> get from the dean generally begin with polite remarks about my health,
>>> cautionary words about the weather, or reminiscences about the last
>>> dinner
>>> we had together.
>>>
>>> These preambles are not pointless, and they are not simply polite. They
>>> are
>>> a way of establishing who is saying what to whom; a recognition that
>>> everything has to be interpersonally contextualized to have any meaning
>>> at
>>> all.
>>>
>>> My point was that I knew your work, and that I knew you had a great deal
>>> to
>>> contribute to the debate on periodization, but that I also knew that you
>>> were chiefly concerned with periods OTHER than the period from 1932-1934.
>>>
>>> This is the main period where Vygotsky talks about a "unit of analysis"
>>> and
>>> analysis into units. And sure enough, as Mike points out, it is a period
>>> of
>>> intense preoccupation with word meaning, particularly with the "tearing
>>> away" of word meaning from the "phasal" properties of language, by which
>>> Vygotsky means the phonological properties, the part which Andy calls
>>> "material" (Thinking and Speech, 1987: 223).
>>>
>>> Thinking and Speech was called a monograph by Luria (on p. 359), despite
>>> the double title and despite the fact that its composition spans over
>>> half
>>> of Vygotsky's whole career. I think Luria is right; it IS a monograph;
>>> the
>>> topic of Vygotsky's monograph is neither "thinking" nor "speech" but
>>> rather
>>> the conjunction "and" that links them. For Vygotsky, that "and" is
>>> consciousness, and the "microcosm" of that consciousness is the
>>> meaning-laden word.
>>>
>>> I think the process of differentiating the purely sensory aspects of
>>> words
>>> from their ideality is why self-directed speech is so important (Chapter
>>> Two), that is why the creation of interfunctional relations is actually
>>> more
>>> important than the independent development of the functions
>>> themselves (Chapter Three), that is why the merging of preverbal thinking
>>> and pre-intellectual speaking can present a model for the development of
>>> every higher mental function (Chapter Four), that is why the replacement
>>> of
>>> "visual-concrete images" by "abstract relations" is the foundation of
>>> conceptual thinking (Chapter Five); that is why foreign language learning
>>> and concept formation are the archetypes that Vygotsky has in mind for
>>> the zone of proximal development (Chapter Six) and it is why thinking is
>>> only realized in the word (Chapter Seven).
>>>
>>> As you can see, I think that the idea that word meaning is the
>>> irreducible
>>> unit of consciousness permeates every single chapter of the book which
>>> was,
>>> intellectually, Vygotsky's last will and testament, even though (for that
>>> very reason) it cannot be considered "typical" or "characteristic" of his
>>> work (merely its culmination).
>>>
>>> You asked me for a text, and like Mike I felt rather overwhelmed, because
>>> so many references seemed to cry out. How to choose? Where to begin? And
>>> what to cut?
>>>
>>> What I did was to cite the last THREE paragraphs of Thinking and Speech.
>>> Of
>>> course, like a Korean academic letter, these paragraphs have to be
>>> contextualized; we have to know who is saying what to whom.
>>>
>>> The last three paragraphs have to be read as the culimination of a book,
>>> and even of a life, and the last six words have to  In the same way, the
>>> last six words have to be read as the culmination of those paragraphs;
>>> we cannot simply cut them into an epigraph without making them
>>> epigrammatic
>>> and consequently banal.
>>>
>>> But (and this was the point of my pointless preamble) you are in a better
>>> position to recontextualize the text than almost anyone else. I assumed
>>> (from your name, and also from your remarkable erudition) that you read
>>> Russian. So I felt reasonably confident that you could place this:
>>> "Осмысленное слово есть микрокосм человеческого сознания."
>>>
>>> It is found on p. 347 of the Labirint edition (2005), which is a reprint
>>> of
>>> the 1934 edition that Vygotsky actually supervised. In English, it means
>>> that the meaning-laden word is a microcosm of human consciousness. I
>>> think
>>> that the word "microcosm" means, here, an irreducible, but fully
>>> complete,
>>> unit.
>>>
>>> David Kellogg
>>> Seoul National University of Education
>>> (Associate Professor)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Visiting Researcher,
>> Wits School of Education
>> 6 Andover Road
>> Westdene
>> Johannesburg 2092
>> 011 673 9265  082 562 1050
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:31:01 +0200
>> From: ulvi icil <ulvi.icil@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: xmca Digest, Vol 45, Issue 56
>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>> Message-ID:
>> <5729a0520902190031k9218929y6cbe1acb2b113a03@mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R
>>
>> Kiitos Kolya ( This does not mean that I know Finnish and Russian. None of
>> them ! )
>>
>> Only I lived one year in Helsinki and I admire Russian literature ,
>> especially 19th century (in fact, who does  not I suggest)
>>
>>
>> On 19/02/2009, Nikolai Veresov <nikolai.veressov@oulu.fi> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Sure, Ulvi
>>> You can find it here
>>> http://nveresov.narod.ru/links.html
>>> Nikolai
>>>
>>>  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/<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>+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/<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>+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<C5C1E79E.1E73B%25packer@duq.edu>
>>>> <C5C1E79E.1E73B%25packer@duq.edu <C5C1E79E.1E73B%2525packer@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
>>>> ************************************
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> 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 62
>> ************************************
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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