asdf
(no subject)
Stockdale Perusse Ph.D. on February 08 1997 @ 12:02

TO: YOSHIDA Hajime:
Dear Ms. Hajime:
I viewed your message. I am a professional person in the United States
and I am in partnership at The Neuro-Health Center in Colorado Springs.
My colleague, Steve Stockdale, Ph.D., and I are very interested in
treating and studying and working on the brain as two people who are
interested in the field of neuropsychology. In addition I am very
interested in the field of cognitive psychology as it relates to
learning and increasing the over knowledge of human beings. I think
this is one of the most important areas of scientific endeavor that
exists today. A great man in your country named Taichi Sakaiya wrote a
land mark book called The Knowledge Value Revolution. I think this book
will ultimately be a classic. This book had a profound influence on my
thinking and I have dedicated my work, research, and study toward the
end of increasing the over all knowledge of children and adults in the
areas of education and psychology and criminal corrections. I have just
started a second company that has dedicated itself to bringing together
the smartest men and women it can find toward this end. We specialize
in building human service programs around the understanding of the
brain, language, social learning theory, neuroscience, computer based
training, and of course language. I am not a mathematician by nature,
but I think that math as a subject is very important, but I think it is
also a language that cognitive psychologists, at least, must become more
familiar with, in order to interface the scientific areas, I just
listed, together. Anyway, nice having this mechanized contact with you.
Interestingly enough, my colleague, may be coming to your country for
the third time in the next couple of months. Your country has just
bought 150 units of technology that is used very successfully in the
elimination of physical pain. Oh! One of the many things we do at our
clinic is the treatment of physical pain.

By the way your English is fine! Sincerely, Gerard Perusse, Ph.D.

YOSHIDA Hajime wrote:

Dina Dahbany-Miraglia on October 31 1997 @ 08:10

please remove my name from the list.

Ricardo Japiassu on May 26 1999 @ 15:05

UNSUBSCRIBE

Joshua Cooper on May 29 1999 @ 18:05

Unsubscribe

Jan Hotze on June 02 1999 @ 10:06

unsubscribe

Darcia Narvaez on July 26 1999 @ 17:07

unsubscribe

Darcia Narvaez, Assoc Prof, narvaez@tc.umn.edu, 612-626-7306
Center for Ethical Development: http://edpsy.coled.umn.edu/psychf/csed
College of Ed & Hum Dev, 358 Peik Hall, 159 Pillsbury
Mpls, MN 55455 FAX: 612-626-7306

Ricardo Japiassu on August 04 1999 @ 04:08

UNSUBSCRIBE

on November 03 1999 @ 13:11

subscribe

Donna Phillips on December 27 1999 @ 06:12

UNSUBSCRIBE

David Preiss on November 28 2005 @ 14:11

Dear colleaguesm

Does any of you have access to this article in the developed world?

Scheerens, Jaap. Monitoring School Effectiveness in Developing Countries.
[References]. [Journal; Peer Reviewed Journal] School Effectiveness and
School Improvement. Vol 12(4) Dec 2001, 359-384.

David D. Preiss Ph.D.
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
www.uc.cl/psicologia

David Preiss on November 28 2005 @ 14:11

Thank you all for helping me in Chile! I got the article several times. What
an incredible community XMCA is!

David D. Preiss
home page: http://pantheon.yale.edu/~ddp6/

on March 20 2007 @ 18:03

Mike-

Wanted to make sure you knew my book reviews are posted.

Muni

Minati Panda on May 01 2007 @ 03:05

test mail

Olga Vasquez on October 06 2007 @ 17:10

let me know if you come across something for someone a bit older than those
classified "younger scholars." I want to take
the year off next year and finish up
the book.
thanks,
o

Olga A. Vásquez
Associate Professor
Department of Communication
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, CA 92093-0503

(858)-534-6284

on March 22 2008 @ 15:03

Sergio Chacón Armijo

Director de Programas Sociales

Fundación (PARENTESIS)

Lafayette 1610, Independencia.

fono: 347 08 07

www.fundacionparentesis.cl

Attachments:
image001.jpg
Karen Wieckert on March 31 2008 @ 08:03

Hello.

I thought some of you might be interested in how the National Mathematics
Advisory Panel final report describes research on learning based on LSV.

"The sociocultural perspective of Vygotsky has also been influential in
education. It characterizes learning as a social induction process through
which learners become increasingly independent through the tutelage of more
knowledgeable peers and adults. However, its utility in mathematics
classrooms and mathematics curricula remains to be scientifically tested. "
(p. 30, General Principles of Learning)

The inclusion criteria for studies included by the panelists threw out
specific types of research...

"Systematic reviews of research on mathematics education by the task groups
and subcommittees of the Panel yielded thousands of studies on important
topics, but only a small proportion met standards for rigor for the causal
questions the Panel was attempting to answer. The dearth of relevant
rigorous research in the field is a concern. First, the number of
experimental studies in education that can provide answers to questions of
cause and effect is currently small. Although the number of such studies has
grown in recent years due to changes in policies and priorities at federal
agencies, these studies are only beginning to yield findings that can inform
educational policy and practice. Second, in educational research over the
past two decades, the pendulum has swung sharply away from quantitative
analyses that permit inferences from samples to populations. Third, there is
a need for a stronger emphasis on such aspects of scientific rigor as
operational definitions of constructs, basic research to clarify phenomena
and constructs, and disconfirmation of hypotheses. Therefore, debates about
issues of national importance, which mainly concern cause and effect, have
devolved into matters of personal opinion rather than scientific evidence."
(p. 63, Research Policies and Mechanisms)

In the Appendix, on pg. 81, the Standards of Evidence are laid out as they
were developed by a subcommittee. Specifically,

"In general, these principles call for strongest confidence to be placed in
studies that
. Test hypotheses
. Meet the highest methodological standards (internal validity)
. Have been replicated with diverse samples of students under
conditions that warrant generalization (external validity)"

The full report can be found here...

http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/index.html

Ka:ren Wieckert

Wolff-Michael Roth on March 31 2008 @ 08:03

Hi there, I am in the process of contributing to a response by a
number of mathematics educators to be published in "The Montana
Mathematics Enthusiast" taking up, among others, those issues Karen
has been abstracting from the Panel report.
Cheers,
Michael

On 31-Mar-08, at 8:32 AM, Karen Wieckert wrote:

Hello.

I thought some of you might be interested in how the National
Mathematics
Advisory Panel final report describes research on learning based on LSV.

"The sociocultural perspective of Vygotsky has also been influential in
education. It characterizes learning as a social induction process
through
which learners become increasingly independent through the tutelage
of more
knowledgeable peers and adults. However, its utility in mathematics
classrooms and mathematics curricula remains to be scientifically
tested. "
(p. 30, General Principles of Learning)

The inclusion criteria for studies included by the panelists threw out
specific types of research...

"Systematic reviews of research on mathematics education by the task
groups
and subcommittees of the Panel yielded thousands of studies on important
topics, but only a small proportion met standards for rigor for the
causal
questions the Panel was attempting to answer. The dearth of relevant
rigorous research in the field is a concern. First, the number of
experimental studies in education that can provide answers to
questions of
cause and effect is currently small. Although the number of such
studies has
grown in recent years due to changes in policies and priorities at
federal
agencies, these studies are only beginning to yield findings that can
inform
educational policy and practice. Second, in educational research over
the
past two decades, the pendulum has swung sharply away from quantitative
analyses that permit inferences from samples to populations. Third,
there is
a need for a stronger emphasis on such aspects of scientific rigor as
operational definitions of constructs, basic research to clarify
phenomena
and constructs, and disconfirmation of hypotheses. Therefore, debates
about
issues of national importance, which mainly concern cause and effect,
have
devolved into matters of personal opinion rather than scientific
evidence."
(p. 63, Research Policies and Mechanisms)

In the Appendix, on pg. 81, the Standards of Evidence are laid out as
they
were developed by a subcommittee. Specifically,

"In general, these principles call for strongest confidence to be
placed in
studies that
. Test hypotheses
. Meet the highest methodological standards (internal validity)
. Have been replicated with diverse samples of students under
conditions that warrant generalization (external validity)"

The full report can be found here...

http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/index.html

Ka:ren Wieckert

Mike Cole on March 31 2008 @ 09:03

How would the work of Jean Schmittau be evaluated in this context?
mike

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth <mroth@uvic.ca> wrote:

Vera John-Steiner on March 31 2008 @ 09:03

Hi ,

I think Schmittau's work is quite important and not very well known
among CHAT folks.
Thanks to all of you for keeping us informed about some of the
highlights of AERA, I was
very sorry to miss the meetings,
Vera

Mike Cole wrote:

Ng Keong on April 10 2010 @ 14:04

http://DevorahEnriguez6824.co.cc

Denise Newnham on April 28 2011 @ 08:04

ira.net>
FB78-1DAF-4DEA-9039-EDAE6CCA84ED@duq.edu> <BLU0-SMTP375690D783317E90FE8CACC5990@phx.gbl> <264A9832-90BA-4E7E-9FF5-D81D68BDE42C@duq.edu> <7C478532-E9E5-4E5A-B1AF-C2F2F537CDAC@duq.edu> <07575672-5144-4711-8940-E3C34790052D@umich.edu>

In-Reply-To: <07575672-5144-4711-8940-E3C34790052D@umich.edu>

Subject: RE: [xmca] concepts for LSV and us

Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 17:29:53 +0200

Message-ID:

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain;

charset="utf-8"

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0

Thread-Index: AcwEqJlO7kJGUS9jSYajcJGaq3qU2gBEA4+g

Content-Language: fr-ch

Dear Jay, Martin and Anna and others

I would like to thank you so very much for this very interesting debate =

that has served to be very useful for my work at the moment.

My kindest regards

Denise

-----Original Message-----

From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] =

On Behalf Of Jay Lemke

Sent: mercredi 27 avril 2011 08:59

To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity

Subject: Re: [xmca] concepts for LSV and us

Martin and all,

I too have been puzzling over various things LSV says about what his =

translators call word-meaning. I think my view is pretty close to =

Martin's (below), but maybe not exactly the same, and my Russian is too =

moribund to help me. I may engage Mike in some conversation about a few =

key points when he gets back to San Diego and the lab.

I am also very sympathetic to Anna's position on many points. So I don't =

see quite the polarization of views that some others do.

I think it is a problem that the translators have not figured out nearly =

as well as we've been trying to do, just what LSV meant in some key =

passages, and as a result the translations may be more misleading than =

any translation inevitably is.

Znachenie slov, for instance, sure doesn't strike me as "word-meaning". =

Shouldn't it be something more like "a word as a meaningful sign"? But =

beyond that, it's a unit in "inner speech", which I take to be =

"inner-directed speech" or "self-directed speech" and it is also =

sometimes called the "inward-facing meaning of the word". Functionally, =

in the larger picture LSV seems to be painting, SOMETHING is a unity or =

fusion of what makes for speech (outer-directed, other-directed, =

communicative word-meanings-in-use) and what makes for thought/thinking =

(inner-directed, self-directed, =

word-meanings-not-fully-realized-as-spoken-words).=20

That SOMETHING I take to be what LSV means (at least some of the time) =

by "concept". If so, it is not much like what almost anybody else means =

by "concept" and certainly not like what mainstream psychology and a lot =

of philosophy has meant by it. It is, however, in my opinion, a far =

better notion for most purposes than the standard view/usage. And as in =

this view a "concept" is a unity between two aspects, BOTH of which are =

realized and can exist ONLY in and through linguistic-word meaning, =

there is no room for a separate, idealist realm of mental realia, at =

least not at the level of conceptual thinking.

I would also note that apparently Anna is also using concept in =

something pretty close to what I take LSV's meaning for it to be, though =

I'm not totally clear from what she's said so far that she, like LSV, =

emphasizes the dynamic struggle-and-juggle between the inward-facing and =

outward-facing aspects of the unity. But I would think she probably =

does, because her context of action and research is how kids learn math =

"concepts" in processes of communication. Indeed her coinage =

"commognition" (which unfortunately I think has little chance of =

catching on) tries to speak a fusion of communication (outer-directed =

word/sign-mediated meaning-making) and cognition (inner-directed =

word/sign-mediated meaning-making).

If all this makes sense, it still leaves open the major question of just =

what's going on within/between these two aspects of meaning-making. =

Socially-historically, I'd agree with Martin's formulation, not really =

very different from Halliday's or many functional linguists who look at =

language change, that (official pronouncements in dictionaries, etc. =

aside) usage patterns from events and text accumulate over relatively =

long timescales to produce changes in the typical meanings in different =

contexts that people learning to use a word use it to make. It's already =

clear from how I said that that that process is just the long-timescale, =

community-level aspect of what's going on developmentally in learning a =

language (first language in particular), minus the details of what's =

happening in interaction-communication and its effects on individuals' =

usage. What is a lot less clear is just those details, which I think LSV =

was trying to describe, or at least pointing us toward what needs to be =

better studied and described: what is the relationship between =

inner-speech and outer-speech, over time, not just in initial child =

development (where LSV focuses on the key threshhold of fusion of =

inner/thinking and outer/speech) but for the rest of the lifespan as =

well?

What needs to be described when we move beyond meanings made =

word-by-word to meanings made with complex, extended texts/arguments? =

Again, between the outward-facing aspect and the inward one? What =

happens when we add to what was known in LSV's time what has been =

learned since about the structure of informal conversational language, =

which in many ways looks a lot more like "inner speech" than it does =

like any analysis of communicative speech/writing known in LSV's time, =

particularly for adults?

And what of what LSV calls at the end of T&S "the final Why?" about the =

meanings we actually make: their rootedness in desires, motivations, and =

emotions?

JAY.

PS. While there are a LOT more issues in our conversation, I just want =

to say that IF LSV meant that conceptual thinking happens ONLY through =

verbal signs, then I would disagree insofar as I believe it happens =

through more complex multi-modal sign resources, including not only =

language, but also visual signs, motor actions functioning as signs, =

emotional feelings functioning as signs, and pretty much anything =

functioning as a sign insofar as it can be "imagined", i.e. function in =

inner-directed meaning-making. (For outer-directed meaning-making actual =

physical objects / artifacts can also play a part in the total mix.)

Jay Lemke

Senior Research Scientist

Laboratory for Comparative Human Cognition

University of California - San Diego

9500 Gilman Drive

La Jolla, California 92093-0506

Professor (Adjunct status 2009-11)

School of Education

University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

www.umich.edu/~jaylemke=20

Professor Emeritus

City University of New York

On Apr 26, 2011, at 4:11 PM, Martin Packer wrote:

role of intellectual running back. So I'd like to try again to explain =

the way I'm reading Thinking & Speech these days.

word. But what are we to take this to be? It seems to me that during the =

book LSV draws a series of distinctions between word-meaning and what we =

might think that it is, but it is not...

people reduce words to their mere sounds, but LSV won't let us do that.

reference, the object referred to. This too is a common mistake that LSV =

wants us to avoid. LSV turns to Frege to draw this distinction. But his =

word-meaning is not the same as Frege's 'sense,' because the latter is =

supposed to be objective and unchanging (though how Frege considered the =

sense of the 'The victor at Jena' to be timeless I really don't know! =

What status did it have before 1806? There's actually a literature on =
this very issue.)

study philology for nothing! But it is, however, objective. (This is =

what blows Andy's socks off. Take a deep breath, my friend.)=20

tried to explain briefly in a previous message that German romanticism =

was a rejection of the way the early Enlightenment had disenchanted the =

world by placing all value, meaning, truth and beauty in the individual =

mind. No!, exclaimed the angry Germans (Prussians?)! There is truth and =

meaning and beauty and value in the world! How? Because the world is =

mind, spirit, Geist. The whole darn cosmos. Each individual mind is just =

a budding off of the cosmic mind.

accepted the proposal that there is objective value in the world. A =

commodity has value (two types of it, no less) by virtue of its =

constitution in social practices, quite independently of whether anyone =

knows this or not. The dollar bill in my pocket has value not because I =

believe this, but because it moves in a complex network of =

social-economic practices. (That's why derivatives crashed despite the =

fact that everyone *thought* they had value; because objectively they =

did not.)

biological functioning. A toxic mushroom is just *bad* for me to eat, =

objectively bad, whether I know it is poisonous or not, by virtue of its =

relationship to my biological functioning. I thinks that's where =

pragmatism heads. But that's an additional wrinkle that we needn't get =

in to today.)

convince us that language has objective meaning that is independent of =

individual consciousness. Let me give two examples. The infant who cries =

out "pancakes" simply by virtue of hearing the sounds repeatedly is =

taken by others to have said something meaningful, though it was =

certainly not what she intended. Or, sometimes when I'm teaching in =

Spanish I make an error of pronunciation or grammar, and say something I =

didn't intend. My students hear and understand it, and laugh into their =

sleeves, but I have no idea what I said.

is a shared, social, objective system. The kind of 'word-meaning' that =

LSV is keen to introduce to us is *in* the language. It is inner, =

internal, inside 'the word' (where 'the word' can signify an individual =

word or extended discourse or...).

it from what we might confuse it with. T&S continues with two chapters =

devoted to demolishing two appealing theories of development: early =

Piaget's proposal that development is socialization (enculturation?), =

and Stern's proposal that development is simply a matter of putting new =

content into the symbolic (conceptual) form that a child develops as =

soon as they start to use words to name things, about 24 months. That =

all seems rather unrelated to word-meaning, except that LSV is =

developing his own proposals about inner speech, which is all about how =

'the word' gets "inside" an individual consciousness. And this will turn =

to be crucially important in the last chapter. (It's also interesting =

that LSV doesn't reject Stern's appeal to Brentano's "intentionality" as =

a characteristic of infant language. He reinterprets it as affective and =

volitional rather than intellectual. So our relationship to the world, =

which will with time become intellectual, is fundamentally emotional and =

grounded in practice. It turns out LSV was siding here with Wundt and =

against Husserl, but that too is another story.)=20

I can line up a selection of textual evidence to show that LSV is also =

drawing a distinction between word-meaning and concept, though evidently =

I haven't convinced too many people yet. (I may have convinced Andy that =

I am an idiot, but that's another matter.) For example, why is there a =

struggle to put our thoughts into words, if the concepts we think with =

are the same as the words we speak with? Why would thought be =

"completed," or even "incarnated," in words, if words and concepts are =

the same? Or, why does LSV propose that concepts are always part of a =

system of generalization in which each involves two components - an =

attitude to some portion of the world and a way of grasping that portion =

- all without mentioning word-meaning once? But there's no space to go =

into this in more detail here. More later, if anyone wants it.

too clear about. He wants word-meaning to be relatively stable, changing =

over historical periods of time, not from day to day. At the same time, =

word-meaning develops *for the child,* ontogenetically. =20

between word-meaning - relatively stable, again - and sense, which =

varies with context and even from moment to moment. In the movement =

inwards from word to thought there are two external planes in the word =

(sound and inner form), then the plane of inner speech (with its =

abbreviation and functional variation), then the plane of thought =

itself. On this plane, thinking has largely left words behind (but =

surely not concepts?), with the "volatization of speech," and it deals =

not with meaning but with sense. LSV emphasizes that sense can be =

disconnected from words, where word-meaning cannot.

"The meaningful word is a microcosm of human consciousness." Here, =

surprisingly and importantly, the term LSV uses for "meaningful word" is =

=D0=9E=D1=81=D0=BC=D1=8B=D1=81=D0=BB=D0=B5=D0=BD=D0=BD=D0=BE=D0=B5 =

=D1=81=D0=BB=D0=BE=D0=B2=D0=BE, whereas for the whole of the book =

word-meaning has been "=D0=B7=D0=BD=D0=B0=D1=87=D0=B5=D0=BD=D0=B8=D0=B9 =

=D1=81=D0=BB=D0=BE=D0=B2." =

(=D0=9E=D1=81=D0=BC=D1=8B=D1=81=D0=BB=D0=B5=D0=BD=D0=BD=D0=BE=D0=B5 only =

occurs five times in the entire book.) It really should be translated as =

"sensible word." Why? Because here LSV is writing *not* about the =

objective meaning of words, but about the personal, motivated, =

action-related sense a word has when someone speaks it. As thinking =

moves outward to speech, in the "materialization and objectification" of =

a thought, sense has to be "reconstituted" in words. "The base units of =

thinking and those of speech do not coincide," so this requires a =

structural reorganization, a creative process that is not simply a =

matter of lining up ready-made units of meaning.=20

unchanging, because each time someone speaks, the 'inner form' of the =

word is nudged a little in one direction or another, worked on and =

worked over, spiced with new connotations. Language is, of course, not =

completely independent of what people actually say and do. As our =

thoughts change, so our language will slowly change too.=20

Leif Strandberg on September 11 2011 @ 23:09

1080304@volker.dk>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed

Message-Id: <80A5EA1D-1D56-445D-9DA7-AF037C70670D@telia.com>

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

From: Leif Strandberg <leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com>

Subject: Re: [xmca] ISCAR (review)

Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 08:44:43 +0200

To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>

X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)

HI everybody,

Back from a hot week in Rome and back to an autumnlike Sweden.

It was/is great to meet so many interesting people from all over the =20

world both on seminars and in the spaces in between (pavements, =20

stairs, restaurants). I do like the Poster Sessions where you have =20

many opporunities to communicate. This year I was glad to talk with =20

Daiana and Andrea from Brazil when they preseneted "Multiple cities =20

in the city; the aesthetic relations between the recyclable material =20

collectors and urban polyphony" (PS 676); and Mikio from Japan and =20

his "The Train Project" (PS 157), and symposium 444 about Belgrade =20

school of Studies on Creativity , Play and Art" with Ana and Ljubica; =20=

and symposium 623 "CH view in pre-school play" with Milda, Elena and =20

Elena; and Paper session "Psychology and literature" with Bella, Anne =20=

Maj and Javier....

and David Olson

and Elinor Ochs

so I "could breathe" in Rome :-)

together with nice PEOPLE... and I agree with Volker that good =20

seminars have connections to PEOPLE (not only describing the world... =20=

but transforming the world)

Thanks f=F6r Rome and a good congress

Leif

Sweden

11 sep 2011 kl. 22.42 skrev Volker Bunzendahl:

Leif Strandberg on September 11 2011 @ 23:09

CB@eastsideinstitute.org>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed

Message-Id: <324A2E2E-86BE-44F1-A03B-FDB76CF0EE46@telia.com>

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

From: Leif Strandberg <leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com>

Subject: Re: [xmca] ISCAR (review)

Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 08:52:13 +0200

To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>

X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)

HI everybody,

Back from a hot week in Rome and back to an autumnlike Sweden.

It was/is great to meet so many interesting people from all over the =20

world both on seminars and in the spaces in between (pavements, =20

stairs, restaurants). I do like the Poster Sessions where you have =20

many opporunities to communicate. This year I was glad to talk with =20

Daiana and Andrea from Brazil when they preseneted "Multiple cities =20

in the city; the aesthetic relations between the recyclable material =20

collectors and urban polyphony" (PS 676); and Mikio from Japan and =20

his "The Train Project" (PS 157), and symposium 444 about Belgrade =20

school of Studies on Creativity , Play and Art" with Ana and Ljubica; =20=

and symposium 623 "CH view in pre-school play" with Milda, Elena and =20

Elena; and Paper session "Psychology and literature" with Bella, Anne =20=

Maj and Javier....

and David Olson

and Elinor Ochs

so I "could breathe" in Rome :-)

together with nice PEOPLE... and I agree with Volker that good =20

seminars have connections to PEOPLE (not only describing the world... =20=

but transforming the world)

Thanks f=F6r Rome and a good congress

Leif

Sweden

12 sep 2011 kl. 02.56 skrev Lois Holzman:

Denise Newnham on September 12 2011 @ 08:09

CB@eastsideins

titute.org> <CAGVMwbUw1KvUTDsxasZJPaHg60KiXz+i0Q5bvKZV7sS5PWZG9A@mail.gmail.com>

In-Reply-To: <CAGVMwbUw1KvUTDsxasZJPaHg60KiXz+i0Q5bvKZV7sS5PWZG9A@mail.gmail.com>

Subject: RE: [xmca] ISCAR (review)

Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:01:44 +0200

Message-ID:

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain;

charset="iso-8859-1"

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0

Thread-Index: AcxxSUfqTO5rDViRQuO78rJXCevSZgAEW4Wg

Content-Language: fr-ch

Dear Carol and xmca

I found that the discussions on xmca had been very helpful for many of =

the

sessions held at ISCAR. Some said that there had not been a revolution =

but

then not everything is a great leap forward, a micro step in such a =

complex

domain should still (to my mind) be recognized. Especially the whole

dialogue on concepts and word meaning.=20

Out of my area but really interesting was the session on Developmental

trajectories in the transition to work with Jaan Valsiner as discussant.

These studies were longitudinal and so contemporary. I purchased after =

the

conference, for my two hour train journey into the hills and my home, =

the

economist which had this rather gloomy account of unemployed youths =

around

the world. Well it made me think back to this session which spoke just =

of

how youths were making sense of all of this (and other things) and =

creating

new spaces. There were so many more presentations throughout that I =

found

just so wonderful... but then perhaps I am easy to fascinate:).

The next thing is that ISCAR is not just a conference every three years =

but

as well the most wonderful opportunity to meet up again with so many =

dear

friends. I felt sincerely as though I had come home:) We missed you and =

Mike

and David Bakhurst and Anne Edwards, Joe Hardman etc etc who could not =

be

present

Denise

-----Original Message-----

From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] =

On

Behalf Of Carol Macdonald

Sent: lundi 12 septembre 2011 14:41

To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity

Subject: Re: [xmca] ISCAR (review)

Where is Golubac?

Where is ISCAR 2014?

We must do a couple of XMCA presentations.

I watched some of the Keynote addresses from home and felt distinctly =

out of

place. Is it possible (she asks humbly) that there purview of ISCAR is =

too

broad, or is XMCA too narrow?

Carol

On 12 September 2011 02:56, Lois Holzman

<lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org>wrote:

gets

(by

conferences.

many

create

Psychotherapy

but

Italians

fancy

with

Egestr=F8m. -

Like

og

p=E5

kursister og

education,

BA

about

750

09/11/11

p=E5

kursister og

development

technology

employees.

--=20

*"All labour that uplifts humanity has dignity and importance and should =

be

undertaken with painstaking excellence."*

*- Martin Luther King, Jr.*

**

*Visiting Lecturer

Wits School of Education

Research Fellow*

*Linguistics Dept: Unisa

*

Christine Schweighart on December 29 2011 @ 01:12

Hi,

I 'm torn between two passions - this discussion won!:) I can't do justice. First Hello Arturo - we haven't spoken since discussion Bernstein's descriptive qualities ( despite being vinculated in the same institution:))
your comment:
"The system of social regulations is built
upon everyday concepts, without which you basically cannot mediate
scientific concepts. But the notions of what is correct for the group
is always regulated by this kind of feeling, of what is felt as proper
or improper, right or wrong. And although there is emotional
contagion, at the end emotions get mediated by concepts as a way to
appease and control them. "Shows a value of the enlightenment 'rationality in control', Yet all such mediation can do is 'align' consistency of 'logic' with an underlying value - just as Wittgenstein's smallest utterence with 'gesture'A 'group' [ and this implies 'subjectification already] oriented to 'correctness' is working within a static 'correct' - to be able to keep that open the values underpinning different conceptual dynamics - in dialogue- are continually 're-explored . [ to self-produce 'feeling of correct' and justice etc in the ongoing dynamic.This is a sideways glance - naturally coming from a backward one - but by no means 'causal' - possibility of orienting to other than what realise now - or 'ideal' breaks inherently - but how /who etc. are the big questions.. A collective 'phenomenology' - but - to find conditions to be receptive to 'perspectives' is itself a 'power-relational' issue, and the 'current' social norm:value:roles in play are such that maintain the status quo.My current intense interest is if a 'pure' dialogic form is 'excluded' from academic practice - in terms of status recognition etc - whilst being drafted in as 'technologists' - in what then holds contradictions and 'nightmares'. Ole. Family visit ahead - Just thanks Larry for your 'time-out' to flag this in the way that you did. Christine.


Mike Cole on January 16 2012 @ 10:01

Larry. Thanks for your earlier posting selecting from the Vasiliuk text. I

know too little about the realm of ideas

into which you took this passage to comment. -- But I found the passage

very helpful. Here is the passage again.

Andy, Thanks for sending out Chapter ll of Vasilyuk's book.

On page 87, I appreciated how he articulated the "ontology of the isolated

individual." I quote:

For the latter [ontology of the isolated individual], the situation taken

as primary for subsequent theoretical development is one where you have, on

the one hand, a separate being isolated from the world, and, on the other

hand, objects, or more precisely things, existing "in themselves". The

SPACE BETWEEN, empty and contentless, only keeps them APART from one

another. Subject and object are both thought of as existing from the

BEGINNING and as INTRINSICALLY definite, PRIOR TO and independently of any

practical connection between them; they are independent natural ENTITIES.

Activity, which brings about a practical connection between subject and

object is STILL IN THE FUTURE; in order [for activity] to commence, it must

be sanctioned while the PRIMARY situation OF SEPARATION between subject and

object still prevails."

This is the classical psychological understanding of the source of activity

as DERIVED and IN THE FUTURE. In the ontolology of the isolated

individual's most highly rationalized FORM can be REDUCED to a view that

activity is BASED on a cognitive calculation thesis. Reflection PRECEDES

the activity within the subject's mind and only after does the activity

take place.

Larry suggest this passage as a jumping off point into a discussion of

terms such as "personality" and

"character" . I hope to keep learning from that discussion, but meantime, I

would like some advice on

the productivity of thinking about alternative formulations in terms of the

way they deal with temporality.

We see very clearly in this passage a characterization of what Goethe

attributes to those scientists who

first declare a "first" from which seconds and thirds can be deduced. He

uses the weaving metaphor

to capture the properties of the life process which have been exterminated

as the scientist murders while

dissecting. So far as I can tell, the weaving metaphor is a lot more useful

to thinking about life processes, so long as

we think of weaving as the constant creation of a variety of strands.

There is an argument about the ontology of the individual that focuses on

the issue of being able to reflect upon

the world BEFORE acting on it; reflection before action. If I understand

correctly the views of people such as Vladimir Zinchenko, a student of

Leontiev's, based upon a variety of evidence from his research on

stabilized images on the retina and the microgenesis of action, both point

toward a kind of "simulation" theory of mind, one which can operate far

more rapidly than the events they are a part of and constituting. It is

implied by the very folk cultural notion that

we all should remember to "stop and think" when things are not flowing

smoothly our way.

It seems to me that it is premature to turn away from kind of claim. It

goes well beyond any narrow discussion

of obscure Russians doing obscure stuff. Its sits right in the middle of

some influential contemporary developmental theories concerning "theory of

mind" that are the foundation of forms of education and therapy ubiquitous

in society.

There are probably some issues of morality of concern at this level, as

well.

mike

To begin with

Andy Blunden on January 16 2012 @ 15:01

I find this a very challenging topic, Mike, but as I see it the idea of

future invoked here goes back to Aristotle's conception of the essence

of a thing being that which it is moving towards. Or, a person is their

destiny, not just the various attributes that they manifest at a given

moment. So in our language, that of Activity Theory, the future is the

aim which is immanent in an Activity, or what Vasilyuk calls a "life

relation." By our commitment to a project (aka a life relation, an

activity) we build our personality. There may of course be mutliple

projects, and the possibility of conflicts and of difficulty. This

should be distinguished from the idea of character being made up of

prejudices, skills, memories, etc., which have kind of rubbed off on us

through participation in past activities. This is something different

from personality, I think. These are things which can be said of us, but

are not essentially us.

Andy

mike cole wrote:

Larry Purss on January 16 2012 @ 17:01

Hi Mike

You wrote,

ontology of the individual that focuses on

the issue of being able to reflect upon

the world BEFORE acting on it; reflection before action. If I understand

correctly the views of people such as Vladimir Zinchenko, a student of

Leontiev's, based upon a variety of evidence from his research on

stabilized images on the retina and the microgenesis of action, both point

toward a kind of "simulation" theory of mind, one which can operate far

more rapidly than the events they are a part of and constituting. It is

implied by the very folk cultural notion that

we all should remember to "stop and think" when things are not flowing

smoothly our way.

I want to enter ths question by clarifying "stop and think". Do young

infants stop and "think". Yes they "pause" and "hesitate" and "stop" before

moving in a new direction, but are they "thinking"? This hesitation and

pausing [and referencing mom's REACTIONS] BEFORE proceeding seems to be a

capacity of all infants. However, can we say the infant is "reflecting"?

[turning backwards on activity before responding] Depnding on how we

answer these questions will help determine what we mean by these concepts.

Also by the concept "simulation" are you referring to a kind of "reading"

of other minds? and "understanding" that they are operating by "having

intentions".

This contrasts with the notion of "attention" and "joint attention" which

is a form of RESPONSIVENESS to the others bodily movement in space [which

does not posit "reading" intentionality of the others actions]

The other question is the more "ontological" question if "shared

experience" precedes "self-experience". Self-experience as a reflective

turning back on shared experience and with the advent of language this

turning back can be culturally named and elaborated as "self-experience".

I'm not sure if Vico has anything to add to this question of temporality

and intentionality. Gadamer in 1996 [at age 92] was interviewed by Jean

Grondin. Jean asked Gadamer about the relation between logic and rhetoric.

Gadamer suggests Vico [1668-1744] had a different perspective on this

relationship. Gadamer writes,

"You certainly remember that the Latin expression for science in Vico is

"critica". What this word really means, however, is NOT communication with

something, but DISTINGUISHING something from something else. Thus, the

whole modern concept of OBJECTIVITY begins to take shape in this time

period. Originally, objectivity meant what SHOWS ITSELF to the subject,

that which stands over against it"

The emphasis is on what shows itself, not on two separate entities

communicating from their already distinct positions. In the process of

"showing itself" objectivity arises and becomes distinct.

Mike I do agree that the question you are posing about temporality and the

place of reflection and intentionality within temporality IS CENTRAL to our

notions of learning and psychology and concept formation.

Let's invite others to this conversation :-}}

Larry

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

Haydi Zulfei on January 17 2012 @ 03:01

Dear Mike

Larry himself
(though after having put up some confusion as to the main stream of Vasilyuk's line of discussion to the effect that he magnifies the CLASSICAL at the cost of THE MODERN) came up with his justification concerning the ‘ontogenesis’ of the child
learning activity which is not something you’re not familiar with .

Now the format
does not allow me to act as Larry did . I wonder while you apparently had or
have the very book at your disposal , why you didn’t continue from where Larry
stopped . The gist of the matter relates to the ‘fisrt thesis’ . On this side ,
the living being ; on that side , things in themsleves ; and in between the
contentless vacuum . Then it remains for the ‘reflecion’ to step in and push to
a start for the future act .
The counter
argument which is at least partially support for the activity theory , comes next
.

[[The cognitive
image provides the basis for all CLASSICAL psychology and is the source of its
fundamental ontological postulates (“immediacy”, “conformity” , identity of
consciousness  and MIND , SELF-IDENTITY
of the individual) and of its methodological principles]]

[[The way in
which activity is understood , within the “isolated individual” ontology , is
directly defined by the “postulate of conformity” , according to which any
activity of the subject is of an INDIVIDUAL-ADAPTIVE nature . If subject and
object (or , strictly speaking,individual and thing) are laid down in the
PRIMARY ontological figuration as separate and independent one of another ,
then the “conformity” of activity –introduced at the next stage(refuted by
Vasilyuk-mine)—can be seen as based on either one of two quite OPPOSITE
mechanisms]]

He then comes
up with his explanation of either case . As for the isolate individual he says

[[… Even the
emotion-based variant of this idea (the basis of action is feeling) still
retains the main cognitivist thesis : activity is sanctioned by MENTAL
REFLECTION (rational or emotioanl)]]

[[… The second
possibility , characteristic for reflexology and behaviourism , is given its
most clear-cut expression in B.F.Skinner’s radical behaviourism . … Here any
and every subject is thoght of on the model of an animal , and an animal at a
pretty low evolutionary level at that .]]

Which of these
ontologies , then , is to be counterposed to the “subject-object”
EPISTEMOLOGICAL schema found in CLASSICAL psychology ?       <>

Only within the
framework of this ontology can A.N.Leontiev’s idea of motivation , outlined
above , be properly appreciated and given its rightful place within the
activity theory of pyschology .

[[As activity
itself is a unit of life , so its main constituent CAUSE –the object of
activity—is a unit of the world . … An object is thus not simply a THING
lying OUTSIDE the life-circuit of the SUBJECT , BUT a THING ALREADY ABSORBED
INTO THE SUBJECT’S *BEING* , which has become an ESSENTIAL FEATURE of
that being , has been SUBJECTIVISED by life process even BEFORE BEFORE any
special IDEAL appropriation (COGNITIVE , EXPLORATORY , INFORMATIONAL , ETC.)
takes place . … This world , while still an objective , material entity , is
not “the physical world” in the sense which that carries for the science of
physics, which studies the interactions of things : this is the lived world .
It is the lived world , in fact , which is the SOLE stimulator and source of
CONTENT for the creature living in it . That is our PRIMARY ontological picture
. … we are not yet apeaking of the various forms of IDEATIONAL mediations
involved in th initiation and regulation of concrete activity on the part of an
actual , concrete person – that will all transpire later , that is NOT what we
start from but what we will come to , “ascending from the abstract to the
concrete .]]   

Best

Haydi

From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Monday, 16 January 2012, 10:49:43
Subject: [xmca] (no subject)

Larry. Thanks for your earlier posting selecting from the Vasiliuk text. I

know too little about the realm of ideas

into which you took this passage to comment. -- But I found the passage

very helpful. Here is the passage again.

Andy, Thanks for sending out Chapter ll of Vasilyuk's book.

On page 87, I appreciated how he articulated the "ontology of the isolated

individual." I quote:

For the latter [ontology of the isolated individual], the situation taken

as primary for subsequent theoretical development is one where you have, on

the one hand, a separate being isolated from the world, and, on the other

hand, objects, or more precisely things, existing "in themselves".  The

SPACE BETWEEN, empty and contentless, only keeps them APART from one

another. Subject and object are both thought of as existing from the

BEGINNING and as INTRINSICALLY definite, PRIOR TO and independently of any

practical connection between them; they are independent natural ENTITIES.

Activity, which brings about a practical connection between subject and

object is STILL IN THE FUTURE; in order [for activity] to commence, it must

be sanctioned while the PRIMARY situation OF SEPARATION between subject and

object still prevails."

This is the classical psychological understanding of the source of activity

as DERIVED and IN THE FUTURE. In the ontolology of the isolated

individual's  most highly rationalized FORM can be REDUCED to a view that

activity is BASED on a cognitive calculation thesis.  Reflection PRECEDES

the activity within the subject's mind and only after does the activity

take place.

Larry suggest this passage as a jumping off point into a discussion of

terms such as "personality" and

"character" . I hope to keep learning from that discussion, but meantime, I

would like some advice on

the productivity of thinking about alternative formulations in terms of the

way they deal with temporality.

We see very clearly in this passage a characterization of what Goethe

attributes to those scientists who

first declare a "first" from which seconds and thirds can be deduced. He

uses the weaving metaphor

to capture the properties of the life process which have been exterminated

as the scientist murders while

dissecting. So far as I can tell, the weaving metaphor is a lot more useful

to thinking about life processes, so long as

we think of weaving as the constant creation of a variety of strands.

There is an argument about the ontology of the individual that focuses on

the issue of being able to reflect upon

the world BEFORE acting on it; reflection before action. If I understand

correctly the views of people such as Vladimir Zinchenko, a student of

Leontiev's, based upon a variety of evidence from his research on

stabilized images on the retina and the microgenesis of action, both point

toward a kind of "simulation" theory of mind, one which can operate far

more rapidly than the events they are a part of and constituting. It is

implied by the very folk cultural notion that

we all should remember to "stop and think" when things are not flowing

smoothly our way.

It seems to me that it is premature to turn away from kind of claim. It

goes well beyond any narrow discussion

of obscure Russians doing obscure stuff. Its sits right in the middle of

some influential contemporary developmental theories concerning "theory of

mind" that are the foundation of forms of education and therapy ubiquitous

in society.

There are probably some issues of morality of concern at this level, as

well.

mike

To begin with

xmca mailing list

xmca@weber.ucsd.edu

http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

Larry Purss on January 17 2012 @ 04:01

Haydi
I appreciate how you have responded to Mike's question on temporality from
an activity perspctive. I want to highlight one section:

This world , while still an objective , material entity , is
not “the physical world” in the sense which that carries for the science of
physics, which studies the interactions of things : this is the lived world
.
It is the lived world , in fact , which is the SOLE stimulator and source of
CONTENT for the creature living in it . That is our PRIMARY ontological
picture
. … we are not yet apeaking of the various forms of IDEATIONAL mediations
involved in th initiation and regulation of concrete activity on the part
of an
actual , concrete person

Do you accept that the word "phenomena" could be exchanged for "content"
and retain the meaning you are developing in the above paragraph
on "activity"?

With the change from "content" to "phenomena" I then "read" the above
paragraph as distinguishing the two alternative "streams" within
phenomenological theory [the strem which posits "self-conscious" as PRIOR
[transcendental phenomenology] and "consciousness" as the prior phenomena
of the lived world [ BETWEENNESS or relational as a phenomenology of
immanence]] and the world's humanness expressed as self-consciousness]

As I understand the exploration of the tension between these two
alternative ways of locating phenomena in human TEMPORALITY [our HUMAN
ontological form of temporality] the dialogue between CHAT and Continental
philosophy can be engaged.

Thanks, Haydi for deepening this discussion on temporality.

For another post is the question of "character formation" and "personality"
development within activity conceived as immanence. The book "Bound by
Recognition" [thans Greg] and the Kyoto Sschool and Gadamer and John
Shotter are pointing to a model that is less "techne" and more "phronesis"
as practical knowledgability or skill leadind to alternative "stances" or
"dispositions" in how we dwell in the world as auto*bio*graphy.

Larry

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>wrote:

Larry Purss on January 17 2012 @ 05:01

Haydi I couldn't resist adding this quote from Eugene Halton in his article
"Pragmatic E-Pistols" [see Greg's post with the link to the journal] On
page 41 Eugene is writing to William James to "externalize his inner
dialogue.

William, as you said it so well when you said, Our intelligence cannot wall
itself up alive, like a pupa in its chrysalis. It must at any cost keep on
SPEAKING terms with the universe that ENGENDERED it." Here, it seems you
are of a piece with Peirce's semiotic realism. Being on speaking terms
with the engendering universe may very well entail an ENGENDERING
CONSCIOUSNESS ALIVE IN AWARENESS to the moment, creatively ATTUNING to what
you called, as I first heard it from philosopher Bruce Wilshire, the
"much-at-once", rather than HABITUALLY CALCULATING.

Temprality is implicit in the above quotation.

Larry

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:26 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

Robert Lake on June 13 2012 @ 13:06

No worky David.

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:46 PM, vaughndogblack@yahoo.com <

vaughndogblack@yahoo.com> wrote:

*Robert Lake Ed.D.

*Assistant Professor

Social Foundations of Education

Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading

Georgia Southern University

P. O. Box 8144

Phone: (912) 478-5125

Fax: (912) 478-5382

Statesboro, GA 30460

*Democracy must be born anew in every generation, and education is its

midwife.*

*-*John Dewey.

Mike Cole on June 13 2012 @ 16:06

lets hope this is not virus spreading>

mike

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Robert Lake <boblake@georgiasouthern.edu>wrote:

Larry Smolucha on June 22 2012 @ 08:06

From: lsmolucha@hotmail.com
To: vygotsky@unm.edu
Subject: RE: [xmca] Smolucha - pronunciation/genealogy
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:32:02 -0500

Message from Francine Smolucha,
The development of verbally mediated (higher psychological functions) fromnonverbal sensorymotor functions (the lower psychological functions) remainsa central issue in human development and Vygotsky's writings. Just as countingcan be studied in its development as a verbally mediated higher cognitive function(see Vera's email) so can numerous other functions including emotional self-regulationand endless forms of creativity. Even dreaming can develop into consciously directed(verbally mediated) lucid dreaming.
In Vygotsky's 1932 paper Imagination and its Development in Childhood, heintroduced the concept of psychological systems to address the complexity ofmultiple higher psychological functions working together. This is a developmentalmodel that moves from lower psychological functions to higher psychological functions topsychological systems. Vygotsky's concept of psychological systems does not replacehis earlier theory of the development of higher psychological functions - read thepassages from the 1932 Vygotsky text in my 1992 paper (pp.64-65).
Note that introducing an infant to verbal counting does not mean the infant can acquirethat skill without fundamental development of lower level functions. It is actually the toddlerin the second year of life who might begin using verbal labels for numerical quantities(one duck, two ducks) actual counting is a preschool skill.