Re: [xmca] microgenesis?

[Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>]

On 3 October 2012 00:43, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi David- This message was begun several days ago but got hung up in my
> messy schedule and a delay while I got to Koffka.
>
> I would like very much to continue the microgeneis discussion started by
> Greg (or was it you?) because it seems to me to get us to the heart of the
> learning/development issue. We made a lot of progress a few years ago when
> you and Andy and I tried to write down "our" theory of development, with
> LSV as the paternal text.
>
> While I have been off doing my form of inquiry, you have been doing yours
>  including all of the intense work on Tool and Znak, and immersing yourself
> in the texts.
>
> I have  have a copy of Koffka at home, so I read a bunch of places where
> the learning/development issue is brought up.
>
> Rather than jump straight into conversation, I would like to provide other
> xmca'ites as wish, to read the texts being discussed.
>
> To that end, I have attached a few pages from Koffka that seem particularly
> to the point. As I understand it, this approach, which attributes cultural
> influences on development only for forms of action that are species
> typical/universal and closely related to (acquiring a first language,
> acquiring the ability to walk and run and jump and duck, and so on).
>
> So the answer to questions about development being involved in learning to
> ride a bike or acquing the ability to read a phonetic alphabet. The matter
> is forclosed. Reading is a process of learning, ipso facto, end of
> discussion.
>
> You indicate in your note that LSV also had some disagreements with
> Koffka, but I was not clear on what they were. If you could elaborate in
> context I would find it helpful.
>
> So, moving slowly, and doggedly sticking to the topic of microgenesis of
> functions including acquiring the ability to walk, to ride a bike, and to
> learn to read, and lets include acquire a language, since that is clearly a
> central topic, I attach the relevant pages from Koffka so others can see
> what we are nattering on about, and at least figure out what is at stake.
>

Thanks for these pages and the historical reference, which I'll look
forward to reading sometime.

One of the issues that I come across is distinguishing change from
development.  This seems to me to be the same problem as identifying
certain behaviours such as training to be rather weak developmentally, or
more or less agnostic to development.

I wonder about, for example, whether Yrjo, in his work with groups, has a
working/operational definition of development that is distinct from change.

Part of the problem is that though we may look for neoformations that lead
to greater coherence and potential, that provide a greater competence and
reach, there is, it seems, equally an argument for developing into a niche
-- to seek perfection along the lines of the cockroach for example.  By
"not changing" (much) in the face of environmental change the cockroach is
different, because it's potential for survival is different.

Huw


>
> If you would indicate other parts of Koffka to read, David, if you think
> them relevant, I can make the pdf and distribute.
>
> more to come.
> mike
>
> PS-- ALL-- Note David's new email. I am probably not the only one who
> missed the transition to it.
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> 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