Re: [xmca] Interpreting Leontiev: functionalism and Anglo Finnish Insufficiences

[Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>]

Dear Larry


You know I'm talking
within the domain of the 'activity theory' , Leontevian version . 
Now look how you start
your response :

You collect , goal , purpose , perspective , all together . You know by 'goal'
I mean the point or focus one orients herself so that she , taking advantage of
the most comfortable 'operations' , succeeds in realizing an 'action' , a
moment of an activity . Perspective is sort of a world-view ; being conscious
of a worldview one might be involved with , takes you to the realm of the whole
personality you've got , your dealing with Nature , your dealing with social
relations , your belonging or lack of it vis a vis a SOCIAL CLASS , the whole
of your ideological stance , so on so forth . It's with respect to all these
which a NEED arises and to satisfy this need , you have to orient on a
corresponding 'object' and that 'object' in itself does not motivate you , it
should BECOME a MOTIVE of an activity . It's here that Leontiev is charged with
'passivity' ; the opponents seek to believe in a reverse process , already and
internally stuffed with kind of 'faith' , 'morality' , (maybe God Terminus
which I don't know about) , deep spring of incessantly flowing / poring out of
all kinds of motives , drives , desires , incentives , etc . just laid there .
We say one becomes sacrificial socially having passed through all
hierarchy of versatile motives until she has reached the highest step , having
tested all results of different motives (reifications) . 

next :

[[ I would suggest for humans many of the "meaningful" acts are
dialogically and hermeneutically  expressed WITHIN material [artifactual]
contexts. ]]
--"meaningful"
acts ====> my 'action-based meanings' . You are identifying and recognizing
the 'acts' through testifying of 'meanings' and you don't emphasize on
dialectics of processes . Then for you meanings are prior to acts and this is
against all I said . You can have your own firm belief but you cannot present
what I've said so clearly as SHELL , KERNEL , ETC. reversibly . 
--are dialogically and
hermeneutically expressed ====> my 'practically weighed' . You test your
'dialogues' 'hermeneutics' even the TRANSFORMATIVE ONES with PRACTICE and
results (reifications) not vice versa . 
--Within material [artifactual] contexts . =====> my first/third layer (tied
to the direction you take) . I say in a dialogue either SHELLS are exchanged
====> communication lost .
or : KERNELS are exchanged =====> might lead to transformative status or
stance (Christine's reference) , a potentiality on the threshhold of ACTUAL
realization . Compare with so-called deep-hidden desires . so think Vasilyuk
takes this to the realm of the 'unconscious' . 
--interactions are due ====> realm of my focus . 

Then dear Larry , we should first of all distinguish our 'gaps' . Otherwise
communication is impossible . 
Now I fear really more lengthening the response . however , I'll read your
message to the end for the second time .   --We use 'reification' for
the end-point of an activity rather than the end-point of a 'dialogue' . The
latter acts just as an ARCHIVE . 
-- [[*for example the God Terminus [as a perspective] expressing particular
social arrangements*]] ====> you put your point of departure a priori 'God
Terminus' . Then I could ask what your premises are . God Terminus , whatever ,
comes from itself ? Just falling down ? , what about evolution , history ? You
know we believe in historical socio-economic formations . We have base and
superstructure . We say in the days of feudalism with such kind of particular
social relations , the feudal class had to administer society in such and such
kinds of affairs , superstructurally leading people towards and propagating
them with such kind of worldview/ideology as God Terminus (a conjecture)
destroying all kinds of Pagan Gods as Idols putting them in an unseeable
Monotheism which could correspond and be in parallel with that kind of base and
that kind of social relations , as it could be with Capitalism , too . Then I
could conclude that , you dear Larry , with so fluent a speech and so flowing a
pen . do not really enter the main arena of discussion , you , in  fact ,
wayward it , you come with your own separate treasure-house of ideas . Then ,
you're not , in fact , responding , you're perhaps ? uni-vocally/unil-laterally
narrating your own tale (forgive) . Tired and of no especial use to continue .
We might be having readers and listeners . 
I bet Larry I'm so curious with all your too lengthy message that I
whole-heartedly rule out ignoring it ! 

Best 
Haydi   


P.s. Again problems with the Internet and the copy paste process .  







________________________________
 From: Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
To: Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> 
Sent: Friday, 30 December 2011, 5:53:05
Subject: Re: [xmca] Interpreting Leontiev: functionalism and Anglo Finnish Insufficiences
 

Hi Haydi
 
I'm going to jump in to reflect on your question from my perspective :-}}
 
You wrote
 
You have to act even today and in the future , too , taking from the consciousness but with each
 taking you encounter it anew because you should act in the direction of a particular goal which does not give you all compentency and omnipotency of dealing with it whatever you want . It's just during the act , it gets clearer and clearer until you reach a REIFICATION all the time having been involved with the IDEAL you've got from REALITY or , better , the OBJECTIVE MATERIAL WORLD . And all culture and consciousness you so heavily and at times quite salienly lean against are but REiFIED PRODUCTS of previous generation's actions and activities . 
 
Haydi, yes this is a fantastic question.  I agree with your statement that its during the act "it" [goal, purpose, perspective gets clearer and clearer.]  I would suggest for humans many of the "meaningful" acts are dialogically and hermeneutically  expressed WITHIN material [artifactual] contexts.  Then you over time REACH a reification.  *for example the God Terminus [as a perspective] expressing particular social arrangements*  Now is this reaching a reification a  "cognitive" [epistemological] achievement, or is it amaterial achievement [already formed] or is it dialogical [an expression of social relations which BECOME reified]
 
This goes back [in my reflections] to the question of IDENTITY.  Is identity a formation or a forming which BECOMES reified.  When we explore a "system" are we exploring a previously formed "entity" or an emerging in*formation.  Cognition as a process of identity "recognition" of what already exists and is reafied, or idenity as the backward glance which we identify [after the dialogue and hermeneutical expression WITHIN material places]  IDENTITY as a TEMPORAL existence NOT a spacial EXISTENCE.
 
Patchen Markell in his book "Bound by Recognition" is proposing that "identity" [as reified] is a BINDING which creates boundaries which are not permeable.  The social arrangements enacted in worshipping the God Terminus are not as FIXATED on the boundary markers as is the reified notion of "private property" as social arrangements which have become so "cognizied" and preoccupied with their ACTUAL RECOGNITION that we loose sight of this reified ABSTRACTION FROM CONTEXTS.  Patchen calls us back to his fundamental ontological notion of being/becoming human - our FINITUDE [our vulnerability at the heart [not head] of our existence].  He suggests our pursuit of self-assertion and self-mastery are assertoric WAYS or MODES [perspectives???] of organizing our social relationships.  At the heart of modernity is this pursuit of "identity" as reified objects which we then desire [cultural-historical] and which motivate us [cultural-historical] but ORIENTED
 towards "identity" as already formed [and needing recognition]
 
What if we take a different "perspective" that does not pursue reifications [constructions that can be deconstructed in the realm of epistemology [as our north star compass point] and instead turn to temporal UNDERSTANDINGS [which start from FINITUDE: fallibility, uncertainty, not knowing] VULNERABILITY to FINITUDE
and from THIS PERSPECTIVE orient to our social arrangements as dialogical understandings [not constructions] within material places.  Gadamer's notion of "understanding" as recognizing our FINITUDE and VULNERABILITY in COMING TO UNDERSTANDING [within a temporal inscape/landscape] NOT a REIFIED DEFENSE [through cognitive recognition of what already exists as identity]
 
A dialogical/hermeneutical perspective focuses on emergence [bringing into existence something that does not yet exist] THROUGH con-verse-ation.  VERSE or graphy or text not as where we live but as tools used in our human dialogue of in*forming perspectives which BECOME IDENTITY with rigid fixed boundaries when reified.
 
This "sensibility" embraces "ambivalence" and multiple perspectives [cultural-historical] as the GIVEN of existence.  To try to grasp identity [as reification] (for example labelling  An abstract group  as the "masses") that already exists and has an identity is the perspective which may be dissolved through dialogical perspective taking.
 
I want to emphasize that reifications are "real" in the sense that they lead to "real" consequences but are the reifications "real" in the physically natural sense or merely cognitions which we struggle to recognize cognitively.  If they are cognitions then that perspective recognizes the dialogical/hermeneutical remediation of what was previously thought as open to further con-verse-ation.  Not "merely talk" but "understanding" which is fundamentally a process of perspective taking.  Seeing through "property rights" as having "real" consequences as "wine bottles" but thes "wine bottles" are not rigid fixed boundaries.  They ar permeale and can be dissolved.  
I work at the personal level of identity politics and I have witnessed what seemed to be a rigid, concrete WALL of identity dissolve in a micro moment as the consequence of a shift in perspective.  I'm not as clear on the possibility of dissolving identity reifications at the structural societal level but I suspect that if enough people "see through" a particular identity formation then there can also be a radical shift in perspective.  [for example the girl in the blue bra who was brutally attacked in Egypt]. That image broadcast across the world broke through a particular identity wall and called many others [particularly women] to a possible new  "understanding" 0f the reification of the concrete wall . Through dialogue of imagining and acting in new WAYS new social arrangements
may form which in looking back we will recognize as forming new identities.  These new identities have not yet formed and so struggling for their recognition [as spatially and structurally already in existence] is putting the cart before the horse.  It is out of the dialogical/hermeneutical engagement with others i which we come to occupy new places with new identies.
 
Haydi, acts are central to this perspective I'm articulating, but acts within perspectives, and perspectives are MORE than cognitive or at the level of identity.  Perspectives are world-forming activities that we are "given" and which we can "take" [soft agency] as "practices" guided by particular ethical perspectives.
 
I grant that this perspective I'm offering up for consideration may be expressed within a Marxist perspective. In dialogue we will possibly find a fusion of horizons [perspectives] if we enter into the conversations with an acknowledgement of our FINITUDE. It is this "attitude" or "sensibility" which sustains generative dialogues which are remediated within a field of FINITUDE.  There will also be many acts of remediation that are more "technical" [techne] or more theoretical  but the approach of generative dialogue embraces and orients towards phronesis.
 
I know there is an alternative perspective that privleges "explanations" or "constructions" as other perspectives on dialogical in*formation but there is a place to engage those alternative perspectives with Gadamer's dialogical notion of "understanding" through con-verse-ation [not merely "talk"]  Bahktin's notion of utterances.  
 
I hope this post is more focussed as I tried to stay with Patchen Markell's language & perspective but I see the theme of recognizing identity [as known cognitive reified spacial metaphors] contrasting with 
recognizing identity [within an ontological COMING INTO BEING as a temporal knowing phenomena] playing out in these conversations.
John Shotter's recommendation to stay close to the "saying" not the "said".
 
I also accept the ambivalence expressed within the heart  of my argument.  Acknowleding the finitude of any perspective [and the underlying vulnerability INHERENT in expressing a perspective] challenges not only "what we know" but also "who we are" I believe this may be why we have retreated into "private" or "intimate" spaces as we no longer TRUST our vulnerability and finitude will be "recognized" "acknowledged" "appreciated","witnessed" in our BECOMING so we fall back towards BEING and identity and concrete reified perspectives of "knowing" and the "said"
 
My question is,  "are specific places required that support  "practices" of acknowledgement [not identity recognition] . Or can an "individual" engage with con-verse-ations through texts and develop the ability to act within "practices" which lead to "dispositions"  For example a Buddhist practice of "self-emptying" or an academic department or a private "institute" or an "intentional community".
Andy suggests we can engage in a project through our struggles to "see through" what is given and received.  Can this form of reading and writing and distributing texts " transform perspectives or must we also participate in practices which are expressing traditions?
 
Larry 
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 3:38 AM, Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com> wrote:

Arturo
>It's got , I think , to be a vicious circle . Many say that men live with their culture . Yes, of course , they do . But the big problem is if they , then , don't act ! And whether which one could have come or could come from the other both initially and ultimately . Initially goes to the phylogenetic process to the effect that man came into being with 'deed' or with 'word' . Those who so heavily lean on 'culture' and 'consciousness' and 'sign' and  'semiosis'  altogether , should say if these categories are standing on their own , have been standing on their own , directly , immediately , secure and guarantee living continuance . Ontologically speaking , a child is a little scientist as Chomsky once said , just needing to be exposed to a language , no needing to interact and act ? As far as I can remember Leontiev believes in activity being a unit of life itself (for a discussion see A.A.LEONTIEV --units and levels of activity--and this is where all
> focus to entrap L) . And 'system' is the label used by Engestrom . Now we are living in a very complicated world of enormously-multiplication of all sorts of phenomena . But does that rule out the initialities and essentialities of food , shelter , protection , game (hunting) and the aftermath ? Today , too , man has to struggle with Nature and with hostile blocking hindrances put up in his way to reach a prosperous , tranquil way of living in society . He has to take culture as mediating but what is culture ? Where did it come from ? Did man , without acting , reach having culture (material and spiritual) ? He also needs 'consciousness' to take from . But what is consciousness ? It's there fixed for ever like a storage-house  on the alert for you to give it the honour of your presence and seek some needy things out of it and then leave without a good-bye ? You have to act even today and in the future , too , taking from the consciousness but with
 each
> taking you encounter it anew because you should act in the direction of a particular goal which does not give you all compentency and omnipotency of dealing with it whatever you want . It's just during the act , it gets clearer and clearer until you reach a REIFICATION all the time having been involved with the IDEAL you've got from REALITY or , better , the OBJECTIVE MATERIAL WORLD . And all culture and consciousness you so heavily and at times quite salienly lean against are but REiFIED PRODUCTS of previous generation's actions and activities . Leontiev says behind the SHELL (word) is the 'kernel' , 'marrow' -- word meaning all in all itself a process of action ; how can you create a meaning without an action ; yes , in a way you can create meaning out of other meanings in the privacy of thinking but three problems occur : a. if you call thinking an activity or not b. your other meanings are action-based or not c. whether you want to be a dead living
> imprisoned in a room ? then , in fact , we are facing three layers here : THE SHELL , THE KERNEL AND THE WHOLE FRUIT , A REIFIED PRODUCT OF A PROCESS OF PLANTING , WATERING , ETC. ; and when a social conflict occurs whether in the province of 'social meaning' or in the province of the (personal meaning - sense- perezhivanie-experiencing) , then you knowingly or unknowingly reach a point of act to resolve the conflict . The problem with Vygotsky is not that he does not believe in act , at least , because he wants 'transformation' , 'freedom' whatever you like . And the problem with Leontiev is not that he is negligent of the profundity and profusion of signs in the life of man today . The point is whether to stick to the Labour theory of Marx (vygotsky relevant or irrelevant) as a way to 'salvation' --so bitter a taste I know --or to the huge world of nowadays' ?? motley and versatile products of semiosis-based phenomena leading at large to
 'negotiation'
> and 'dialogues' hopefully leading to fantastically-believed automatically action-generating of 'emancipation' in confronting the ACTION-BASED day-to-day operations of Capitalism .
>
>
>Andy :[[Robert Brandom does the same thing. There is a whole tendency which is so
>
>
>afraid of Marx and the forces of production that they have theoretically
>excised the entire human-made material world from human society.]]
>
>Haydi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Arturo Escandon <arturo.escandon@gmail.com>
>
>To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>Sent: Thursday, 29 December 2011, 19:55:59
>
>Subject: Re: [xmca] Interpreting Leontiev: functionalism and Anglo Finnish Insufficiences
>
>
>
>Hi David.
>
>
>Not sure you are interpreting Leontiev correctly. For Leontiev, "life"
>
>is the sum-total of activities or a system, a hierarchy of successive
>
>activities. But he is dealing with this in relation to consciousness
>
>in a Marxian sense. For Marx, consciouness is "the actual life of
>
>people". In order to ascertain activity you have to look at the
>
>object, and therefore, you have to look at the object of actions that
>
>realize activity, for they are non-coincidental with the object of
>
>activity. But that is the method proposed by Leontiev in agreement
>
>with Marx's proposed method, not a unit of analysis.
>
>
>"...activity is not an additive process. Hence actions are not
>
>separate things that are included in activity" (Leontiev, 1977, p.
>
>185)
>
>
>The kind of "structure" of activity introduced by Leontiev is of
>
>abstractness or abstraction, not of levels or parts.
>
>
>I do not see any major departure from LSV. Eventually, if you take the
>
>unit of analysis "word meaning", you will have to empirically unwrap
>
>the contradiction between (personal) sense and (social meaning)
>
>meaning, which takes you back at the intersection between meaning and
>
>sense (or activity and action), otherwise you will get into some kind
>
>of reified form of interactionism.
>
>
>Of course my own interpretation may be wrong.
>
>
>Best
>
>
>
>Arturo
>
>
>
>
>
>On 28 December 2011 22:49, David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I have a problem. I accept that Vygotsky's search for a unit of analysis is teleological: it works backwards from a problem rather than forwards from particular elements. I accept that for this reason it has a clear relationship to what Andy calls "defining a whole field".
>
>>
>
>> What I do not accept is that the field is really reducible to the units of analysis, microcosmically, that we can really, as Blake says, perceive the universe in a grain of sand. That is not just romantic science (that is, science which dares to question Cartesian rationalism and dualism); it is romantic mysticism.
>
>>
>
>> So for example capitalism is not the sum total of commodities. A mind is not a skull stuffed with word meanings. And nature is not just a bunch of spaces. Yes, in each case the unit contains the essence of the whole. But in no case is whole equal to the sum of its parts. A body is not simply cells, but also plasma, and electrical impulses, and structures that go well beyond the cellular level. Yes, the unit of analysis contains the problem. But the unit of analysis is not itself the solution to the problem.
>
>>
>
>> Not only is the whole not equal to the sum of its parts, I think that the unit of analysis is not equal to itself; that is, it must develop. That means that the unit of analysis has to be an open system, and not a closed one; there must be some means by which things which are not part of the unit can become part of the unit. I think that the commodity and the meaning-laden word pass this test: the commodity absorbs labor, and the meaningful word absorbs sense. But I also think that "activity" does not.
>
>>
>
>> That's part of my objection to Leontiev, I'm afraid. Leontiev DOES say that an activity is reducible to its component actions, without remainder, and an action similarly fungible into operations. That's why I think the accusation that his explanatory principle is the same as his unit of analysis (Kozulin) is true.
>
>>
>
>> I realize that this brings me very close to Nikolai Veresov. Nikolai objected to my interpreting "microcosm" as "unit of analysis" (as in "The meaning-laden word is a microcosm of human consciousness"), and pointed out that a macrocosm is not made up of microcosms. I now think his objection was correct. The "meaningful word" is not really a unit of analysis for consciousness in general (and that is why Vygotsky offers, for example, perizhvanie for young children). It is only the "and" in "Thinking and Speech".
>
>>
>
>> David Kellogg
>
>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>
>>
>
>> --- On Mon, 12/26/11, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
>>
>
>__________________________________________
>
>_____
>
>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