Re: [xmca] Co-evolution

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

I, of course, believe that the evidence for co-evolution accrued since
Vygotsky made this claim, makes the claim for co-evolution very strong.

As I understand it (perhaps mistakenly) Gould's emphasis on heterochrony and
heterogeneity combined with his clear statements about the Lamarckian nature
off cultural evolution.

Too bad about co-evolution being wrong. Rocks will have to remain as they
are and were!
mike

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 5:14 PM, David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>wrote:

> But Vygotsky really rejects the whole idea of co-evolution of brain and
> mind.
>
> In Volume 4 ("History of the Developmental of the Higher Mental Functions")
> he refers (p. 16) to "the development of human behavior beginning where the
> line of biological evolution ends".
>
> Then there is this very confusing sentence, which must be either a
> mistranslation or a slip of Vygotsky's pen:
>
> "The basic and all determining difference between this process
> (history--DK) and teh evolutionary process must be the circumstance that the
> development of higher mental functions occurs with a change in the
> biological type of man, while change in biological type is the base of the
> evolutionary type of development."
>
> Vygotsky immediately contradicts this:
>
> "As we know, and as has been demonstrated many times, this characteristic
> is also the basic difference in the historical development of man. In a
> wholly different type of adaptation in man, the development of his
> artificial organs, tools, and not a chagne in the organs and structure of
> the body, is of primary importance."
>
> He then says EXACTLY the opposite:
>
> "The position on development without a change in biological type acquires a
> completely distinctive and exceptional significance in psychology because,
> on the one hand, no elucidation has been produced yet for the problem of
> what kind of direct dependence there is of higher forms of behavior, higher
> mental processes or structures and functions of the nervous system and,
> therefore, to what extent and, what is most important, in what sense is a
> change and development of higher mental functions possible without a
> corresponding change for development of the nervous system and the brain."
>
> So despite the slip up, it's clear that Vygotsky does not accept the idea
> that the brain and the mind co-evolve, still less would he accept formations
> like Chomsky's "mind/brain". One is the product of natural evolution, and
> the other of cultural progress. It's not that never the twain do meet. It's
> that if they are to meet (as they do in ontogenesis) they must be distinct
> to begin with.
>
> I think there's something else here, though. Unlike Leontiev, Vygotsky
> ENTIRELY avoids the work of Trofim Lysenko, which he must have been very
> painfully aware of (Leontiev embraces Lysenkoism and does not repudiate it,
> even when it is safe to do so). Now, the essence of Lysenkoism is precisely
> the idea of co-evolution of physical and cultural lines of development IN
> PHYLOGENESIS, and not simply in ontogenesis.
>
> And something still more. On p. 17, Vygotsky says:
>
> "In the development of the child, two types of mental developmetn are
> represented (not repeated) which we find in an isolated form in
> phylogenesis: biological and historical, or natural and cultural development
> of behavior. In ontogenesis, both processes have their analogs (not
> parallels)."
>
> On p. 21 he says:
>
> "All the uniqueness of a transition from one system of activity (animal) to
> another (human) made by a child consists in the fact that the one system
> does not simply replace the otehr, but both systems develop simultaneously
> and together: a fact which is unlike any other in the history of the
> development of animals or in the history of the development of man."
>
> Now, it might be tempting to see this as a retreat: Vygotsky is saying that
> the animal system and the human system continue to evolve. That is exactly
> what Vygotsky is EXCLUDING: the co-development of animal activity and human
> activity is NOT co-evolution, but co-development; it's ontogenetic and has
> absolutely NO precedent in phylogenesis.
>
> With this, Vygotsky is rejecting not only Lysenko (a dangerous thing to do
> in 1931, the year this was written). He is also rejecting Haeckl,
> the biologist who coined the phrase "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", who
> held that the failure of "primitives" (e.g. Jews and blacks) to develop into
> civilized, educated gentlemen was racial.
>
> Sure enough, on p. 26 Vygotsky distinguishes between the "feeble-minded"
> and the "primitive", by which he means the ONTOGENETIC (not the ethnic)
> primitive; the child without an education: "The primitive (...) does not
> devitate from the norm in natural development; he only remainsfor some
> reason, mostly external, outside cultural development."
>
> Now, WHY does Vygotsky emphasize so forcefully that:
>
> a) "the development of human behavior (begins) where the line of biological
> evolution ends" (p. 17)?
>
> b) "we do not mean to say that ontogenesis in any form or degree repeats or
> produces phylogenesis or is its parallel" (p. 19)?
>
> I think it's for the same reason that he emphasizes so forcefully that
> learning and development must be kept separately in order for the former to
> lead the latter. Of course, both CAN be reduced to "changes over time", and
> we may even imagine a false reciprocity between the two on a very abstract
> level.
>
> But when we ignore the sheer DIFFERENCES in time scale between phylogenesis
> and sociogenesis, between sociogenesis and ontogenesis, beteween ontogenesis
> and microgenesis, then we destroy the causal-dynamic explanation that
> Vygotsky wants, because we lose the causal in the dynamic.
>
> Only by DISTINGUISHING between physics and chemistry can we use explain how
> chemistry represents a qualitatively new form of organization of physical
> matter. The same thing is true of distinguishing between chemistry and
> biology, and also biology and culture.
>
> As Gould pointed out, even within evolution, there are very different time
> scales: periods of (comparatively) rapid change (although on a sociogenetic
> time scale they are vanishingly slow). And as Gould and Vrba argue,
> "exaptation' is a quite different mechanism from biological adaptation. The
> mind is created not by adaptation but by the sociocultural exaptation of the
> biologically adapted brain.
>
> David Kellogg
> Seoul National University of Education
>
>
> --- On Thu, 11/11/10, Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu> wrote:
>
>
> From: Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
> Subject: [xmca] Co-evolution
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Date: Thursday, November 11, 2010, 10:23 AM
>
>
> "the more life there is, the more rocks there are"
>
> <
> http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2010/09/14/129858314/my-grandson-the-rock
> >
>
> Martin
>
> On Nov 11, 2010, at 12:58 PM, mike cole wrote:
>
> > Either way or both, rocks and humans can be said to have co-evolved,
> right?
> > mike
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:43 AM, smago <smago@uga.edu> wrote:
> > I really don't know what rocks have and don't have, aside from scientific
> properties like retaining heat. I only know that some people find them to
> have a spirit outside the bounds of human influence and belief. Beyond that,
> we'd need to consult someone who shares that perspective, which I've never
> been able to adopt personally even though my property has perhaps thousands
> of them, mostly from before my intervention but many that I've imported
> because I like rocks and they're great for building retaining walls for
> garden terraces and other structures that. p
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> On Behalf Of Martin Packer
> > Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 12:37 PM
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: Dogs
> >
> > But hang on, Peter - you're saying, then, that rocks have a spirit of
> their own *for* indigenous people.
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On Nov 11, 2010, at 12:28 PM, smago wrote:
> >
> > > Sounds like the old "tree falls in the forest" thing.
> > > But I suspect that this is a Western perspective. As I understand
> Indigenous perspectives in N. America, the rocks have a spirit of their own
> and don't need people to construct their social futures for them. p
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> On Behalf Of mike cole
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:17 AM
> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: Dogs
> > >
> > > I posted this scholarly account of humans and rocks a while back. Seems
> to
> > > suggest an answer to the co-evolution issue, Martin, although the
> gender
> > > ascription and individualism are a little unsettling.
> > > :-)
> > > mike
> > > ----------
> > > *A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man
> contemplates
> > > it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.*
> > > Antoine de Saint-Exupery<
> http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/antoinedes161736.html>
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I turned on the radio this morning to catch the end of a news story
> about
> > >> the co-evolution of humans and rocks! Does anyone know what they were
> > >> talking about?
> > >>
> > >> Martin
> > >>
> > >> On Nov 10, 2010, at 10:33 PM, mike cole wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>> When one steps back
> > >>>> and thinks of the quantity and scope of plants and animals that
> humans
> > >> have
> > >>>> domesticated
> > >>
> > >> __________________________________________
> > >> _____
> > >> xmca mailing list
> > >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >>
> > > __________________________________________
> > > _____
> > > xmca mailing list
> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________
> > > _____
> > > xmca mailing list
> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> > __________________________________________
> > _____
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________
> > _____
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca