Re: [xmca] "higher psychic function"

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

On 13 February 2012 16:53, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> I believe John Shotter's article I posted yesterday has a perspective that
> may add to [or confuse] the discussion of "higher" as above or "better"
> functions.  John's article is emphasizing the PARTICIPATORY and he
> contrasts this with "abstractive" psychological processes.  I will quote a
> paragraph from page 7 of the article.  See yesterday's attachment if you
> want to read the full article.
>
> "It is at this point that we run into a contradiction. And as a result, we
> can easily find ourselves diverted from our concern with the nature of
> Vygotsky's enabling theory-method.  For while Goethe (and Wittgenstein too)
> see PARTICIPATORY thinking as PRECISELY the kind of thinking we must from
> now on seek - if we are to move beyond the limitations of abstract,
> theoretical, schemes of thought in relating ourselves to the living forms
> around us - Vygotsky seems to disparage such thinking in complexes as
> primitive.  He is not unaware of the fact that we still make use of such
> thinking in our daily lives: 'The adult constantly shifts from CONCEPTUAL
> to concrete, complex thinking.  The transitional, pseuoconceptual form of
> thought is not confined to the child's thinking: we too resort to it in our
> daily lives' (Vygotsky)  Nor is he unaware that: 'The principle function of
> complexes is to ESTABLISH BONDS AND RELATIONS. Complex thinking begins with
> the unification of scattered impressions: by organizingdiscrete elements
> into groups, it creates a BASIS for later generalizations.' (Vygotsky)
> But, rather than seeing a complex as based in a piece of empirical evidence
> of 'clearly of a higher sort' (Goethe) - just because it is organized as a
> UNITY of scattered impressions - he sees it instead as 'a definite
> historical stage in the development of language and thought' (Vygotsky).
> For 'the advanced concept presupposes more than unification.  To form such
> a concept it is also necessary to ABSTRACT, to single out elements, and to
> view the abstracted elements APART FROM the totality of concrete experience
> in which they are embedded..
>
> John Shotter is questioning the valuation of abstracting conception as
> "higher" than participatory knowing.  Yes, abstracting is later developing
> and transformative BUT not transcendant. In each new moment participation
> precedes abstraction.


1) One's manner of mediation mediates perception and action, so I don't see
any participatory experience that precedes an ontology (your reference to
abstraction?) of some form.

"Higher" does hint at negentropy, a form of transcending order.  But it
only hints if you know about entropy.

2) see below.


> John writes,
>
> "to come to an understanding of LIVING forms we must encompass more than
> merely an interconnected set of elements abstracted from concrete
> experience, we must also SEE those elements in terms of a UNIFIED structure
> of possibilities unfolding in time; to SEE the being before one
> historically, is to see it as a being of this rather than that kind, as
> having this rather than that STYLE of life. Thus each particular life form
> we encounter presents us with the same task all over again.  We need a
> sense not only of crucial past events shaping its PRESENT form, and thus a
> sense of events to which it might now be RESPONSIVE, but also of the NEXT
> possible forms it might manifest as a result.  And it is THIS, as Goethe
> realized only too well, that is the STRENGTH OF PARTICIPATORY thinking: for
> once one has identified oneself with, or INTERNALIZED A SYNOPTIC SENSE of,
> all the tiny details of the RESPONSIVE LIFE of a particular living form,
> from birth to death, then one is in the position of being able oneself to
> RESPOND, PRACTICALLY, to it, whatever stage of development it happens to
> be.  This point is crucial, and has the most starting consequences for our
> understanding of Goethe and Vygotsky's enabling theory-method [as a form of
> apercu or apperception]]
>

2) I'm reading 'participation' here in a different sense to how it's often
used in the sense of participation as mutual adaption.  Participation here
seems to be referring to the participation of newly acquired knowledge,
which implies a negentropic model which is not, I think, in the regular
lexicon of activity theory (as opposed to historical (ontogenetic)
development) .

Huw


>
> I believe Shotter's perspective adds to the comments from David Kellogg,
>
> I am wondering what he would have called his book if he had published it in
> one installment. It seems to me that Vygotsky loved dialectical oppositions
> in his titles, like "Thinking and Speech", and "Tool and Sign". So (I am
> speculating of course) I think he might have called it "Skill and System",
> or "Activity and Volition", or perhaps "Action and Will". And it's the
> merger an interpenetration of these two terms that takes place during
> cultural development which Vygotsky called--but only provisionally--the
> higher psychic functions.
>
> Shotter might add "complexes and abstractions" or "participation and
> distanciation"  What Shotter is emphasizing is the dialogical "call and
> response" or EXPRESSION when engaging with living forms.
>
> Larry
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut <
> bella.kotik@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Colette asked for  a concept  "that it be best read/understood/accepted
> by
> > educationalists (more specifically, science education researchers)
> > in such a case  it seems that  "Extension of psychological mediatory
> > function" does not fit the context Bella Kotik-.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > On 13 February 2012 12:09, Bella Kotik-Friedgut <bella.kotik@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > >  Dear Colette my off-list note returned rejected by your server, so:
> > > >
> > > >  I use "higher mental functions" or sometimes "higher psychological
> > > > functions", but the first is preferable.
> > > > --
> > > > Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Colette Murphy <
> c.a.murphy@qub.ac.uk
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dear All
> > > > > I'd be very interested to hear your views on how to
> > edit/reword/rewrite
> > > > > the phrase "higher psychic function" in relation to Vygotsky's CH
> > > theory
> > > > so
> > > > > that it be best read/understood/accepted by educationalists (more
> > > > > specifically, science education researchers)?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Perhaps it would be better to use a term that pointed to the phenomena,
> > > such as "Extension of psychological mediatory function".  "Higher"
> > relates
> > > the phenomena to other psychological theories but points away from the
> > > phenomena -- one is left considering why one function is higher than
> > > another whilst embedding the ideas in an (unnecessary) analogical
> > framework
> > > of "height = abstraction" or "higher as in high church" in which case
> one
> > > is even further removed from a precise formulation using a metaphorical
> > > frame.
> > >
> > >
> > > > I'm happy to engage off-list
> > > > > if this query is better treated that way.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is clearly on-topic in many ways.
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Huw
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Thanks a million
> > > > > Colette
> > > > >
> > > > > Dr Colette Murphy
> > > > > Senior Lecturer
> > > > > School of Education
> > > > > 69 University St
> > > > > Queen's University
> > > > > Belfast BT7 1HL
> > > > >
> > > > > tel: 02890975953
> > > > >
> > > > > “Why is it, in spite of the fact that teaching by pouring in,
> > learning
> > > by
> > > > > passive absorption, are universally condemned, that they are still
> so
> > > > > entrenched in practice?”
> > > > >
> > > > >          John Dewey Democracy in Education 1916, Page 46
> > > > > ________________________________________
> > > > > __________________________________________
> > > > > _____
> > > > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut
> > __________________________________________
> > _____
> > 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