|
(Superman, J-Monkey, Kitty, Koala, Chokey, and other homework delinquents arrive late, and they are trying to heroically to catch up with their classmates. They have skipped over Section Seven and they are asking about Section Eight).
Superman: OK, so a chain is a chain. It's a bunch of objects, and it is equal to the sum of its objects. There isn't any abstract idea that stands up the objects. How does the child choose the objects to make up the chain?
LSV: The same way the child chooses objects to make up the associative complex and the collection complex: the child uses concrete resemblances and factual links.
Superman: I can see that with the associative complex: a doll collection is a collection of dolls that look like the child's favorite doll. It's the concrete resemblances and factual links that the child notices and treasures.
LSV: Right. This kind of "central object" also occurs in adult thinking. For example, the idea of a "bird" or a "fish" in an adult mind, a bunch of objects that are more or less similar to a "central object".
Kitty: Wait a minute. I thought the collection complex is something like a knife, and a fork, and a spoon, and a plate. Where is the concrete resemblance?
Chokey: Or a shirt, a pair of pants, a pair of gloves, and a pair of socks. Where is the factual link?
LSV: The factual link is an actual experience: getting dressed, having a meal, and so on. This actual experience brings the objects together and unites them in activity. But the unity is only functional, and it depends on having the objects in a single visual purview again and again and again.
Superman: But with the chain complex there is no actual, factual empirical link?
LSV: Yes, there is. But it's a weak one, based on perception.
Kitty: Why is it weak?
LSV: It keeps shifting and changing. One minute it's color and the next minute it's shape. Then it's size, and then it's height.
Chokey: So development in this case is a WEAKENING of links and not a STRENGTHENING of links?
LSV: Sure. Think of what happened when the child moved from the associative complex to the collection complex. With the associative complex the links were real and tangible; the central, core, "key" object is right there in the child's hands. But with the collection complex it's not so clear; the connection is a kind of event, rather than something you can hold in your hands.
J-Monkey: That means a weakening of the child's dependence on the perceptual field too, doesn't it?
LSV: Exactly. And that's just what is missing in monkeys. No offence!
Kitty: Let me get this straight. You are saying that the child's mental development involves a WEAKENING of thought and not a STRENGTHENING of thought.
LSV: I am saying that mental development involves a weakening of ONE kind of strong thinking (perception) and a strengthening of another, at first much weaker, kind of thinking, namely generalization and eventually abstraction from the visual field.
Koala: Is it always like that? A stronger function gets weakened, and a weaker function gets stronger?
LSV: Maybe. When the child begins to walk, he doesn't walk better than he crawls. he walks a lot worse. When the child begins to speak a foreign language, he doesn't speak it better than his mother tongue. Not at all!
Cherry: So why does the child give up a perfectly good function and take up a much less effective one? That doesn't make sense. It doesn't seem efficient.
LSV: It isn't! Ontogenesis is not a kind of evolution; it's not a kind of biological adaptation, where inefficiency is punished by death. It's a cultural and social adaptation, and inefficiency has its rewards. For one thing, like "No!" and "Why?" inefficiency is FUN. It's GRATUITOUS COMPLEXITY.
Kitty: In other words, PLAY. I went to a play a few weeks ago. I don't remember the author, but I remember this: "Because children grow up, we think a child's purpose is to grow up. But a child's purpose is to be a child."
LSV: That was a good play on words. The link between "play" and "a play" is really an external resemblance, not a resemblance in internal meaning. So it's kind of a chain complex.
Chokey: I thought this section was supposed to be about DIFFUSE COMPLEXES. Is the principle for selecting and including something in the complex stronger or weaker in the diffuse complex?
LSV: Well, it's stronger than the chain complex. In the chain complex there is no principle at all, just random variation. But in the diffuse complex the child starts with a yellow block. Then the child includes a light green one. And then a blue-green one, and then a blue one, and then a black one. Now, you can say that it's a chain, because the last block has nothing to do with the first one. But it's not a chain because every block is chosen for its color. It's just that the meaning of "color" is very weak and very changeable.
Superman: Does it have to be about color?
LSV: Not at all. Suppose the child starts out with a triangle. Then he or she decides to choose a trapezoid, because it's "big down here and small up there". And then the child chooses a square because it's "kinda angle-y". You can see that the reason for choosing a block is getting more and more diffuse.
J-Monkey: But if it keeps changing then the last block really doesn't have anything to do with the first one! So it's really a chain.
LSV: No, something can change infinitely and still remain the same thing. Consider my people, the Jews. In the Jewish Bible it is written:
As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured:
So will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.
Think of a very very very old family. Say, Abraham and Sarah. They have children: Esau and Jacob. and those children have children: Isaac and Ishmael. And so on and so forth. The family is really unlimited, and the boundaries between Jews and non-Jews are not very clear. Are Christians really a kind of Jew? Are Muslims? But it's still one family; it's just a very very diffuse one.
Kitty: So the diffuse complex is really a kind of infinite but still integral family?
LSV: Potentially, yes. And that's the real difference between the diffuse complex and the other complexes before it. The diffuse complex is not limited to the child's immediate experience. It can potentially include almost anything, and so we find all kinds of strange associations and crazy assertions, wild stories and bizarre connections.
Koala: So the diffuse complex includes fairy tales and fantasies? Magic, and fate, and sheer dumb luck?
LSV: Yes, the child sometimes explains connections by talking about magic and fate and sheer dumb luck. These are not necessary, conceptual connections. But they are not concrete, visible connections either. They are connections between two things that don't really seem to be connected at all. Piaget calls this connection syncretism and Levy-Bruhl calls it "participation", but I feel that in the child's mind, it is really a kind of diffuse complex.
Chokey: So how does the child get to the concept from magic and fate and sheer dumb luck? I don't understand.
LSV: Your friend Handyman understands. There's a very important bridge, and it's called the pseudoconcept. We'll talk about it next time.
|