[Xmca-l] Re: Unit of analysis RE: experience

[Lubomir Savov Popov]

Hi Michael,

We can separate abstract thinking as an object of study and training. However, I don't see any problem if we acknowledge abstract thinking as a component of activity. Thinking is a component of activity, and there is no reason to separate abstract thinking from activity. In this regard, it becomes reflection or at least a component of reflection. It has its own role, and its own life; but it has also a joint role and a joint life. I am not propagating extremes. I envisage a more balanced system of doing and reflecting. Not just doing. And of course, not only reflecting. 

Best,

Lubo


-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Glassman, Michael
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 11:40 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Unit of analysis RE: experience

Hi Lubrimor,

Yeah, I think Dewey might scoff at the idea that abstract thinking separated from the activity we do is the foundation of the human condition.  Or if is the foundation it is because those who make their bread and butter off of abstract thinking make it that way.  There's nothing wrong with abstract thinking and learning about how the world works, just don't give it a position separate from and especially above the real problem solving that people do.

Hi Helena,

If scientific management is separate management by experts then yes, I think this is what Dewey was talking about.  And I think we can definitely see how this has played out in the way MBAs are destroying so much including education and the way economists destroyed the financial world.  They have power because they claim they have the abstract knowledge and we defer to them based on their degrees.

Michael
________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Lubomir Savov Popov [lspopov@bgsu.edu]
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 11:31 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Unit of analysis RE: experience

Hi Michael,

Dewey has interpreted and explicated a real situation and I don't have a problem with that. We have to allow for multiple interpretations for the reasons I mentioned in my mail on the unit of analysis.

Now, when we talk about control and the related categories, we enter into the realm of ideology. I personally do not see a problem with elitarian academism, as long as it is productive and contributes to the development of technology, culture, and society. One of my problems with Dewey is that he puts too much emphasis on hands-on thinking. Or at least, his followers create such an impression. I believe that abstract thinking is at the foundation of the human condition.

Hi Helena,

There is nothing wrong with scientific management, except that it could not break the ceiling and could not become scientific. For a beginning, it wasn't bad, but it didn't grow to the level of its aspirations. As a result, the scientific was compromised and the management became a game of politicking as well as a kind of a neoslavery. But these are not scientific. The role of the expert in current management is minimal. The expert is controlled by the manager and abused both professionally and ethically. The manager uses the expert to provide a scientific face of decisions that are based on instinct and economic interests. Then, blame the expert. This is another topic, and quite important, I think. It has nothing to do with empowerment ideology. It has to be resolved within the framework of expert society. I would stop short of using the term technocracy because just like scientific management it is compromised by incompetence and power games. But I would like a term that reflects the governance by expertise. There is nothing bad in socially responsive expert society. It is not unusual that when politicians fail in government, they appoint an expert government to stabilize the country and the economy and then they take over again to play their games.

Best wishes,

Lubo


-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Glassman, Michael
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 11:11 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Unit of analysis RE: experience

Hi Lubomir,

My feeling right now is that Dewey might disagree with your argument.  It's a pretty compelling argument and I probably cannot do it justice.  Dewey thinks that one of the mistakes we have made in the progress of human society is in creating a knowledge base that is in some way separate from what people are actually doing to solve problems.  This create an elite population of people who have knowledge, based on what other people do, and then use that knowledge as a form of control.  This is seems happened first in religion and then in academics.  The intellectual elites (Dewey doesn't use that word and I wish I could come up with a better one right now) develop a knowledge pool separate from the actual activity of problem solving that is then used to control those very problem solvers.

It's a pretty radical idea (I have been surprised how radical a book Experience and Nature actually is, but also how prescient it is).

Michael
________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Lubomir Savov Popov [lspopov@bgsu.edu]
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 11:04 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; ablunden@mira.net
Subject: [Xmca-l]  Unit of analysis RE: experience

Hello every one,

The unit of analysis is conceptualized in relation to the nature of phenomenon, the paradigm selected, and the objectives of the project, to name just a few. There is no problem in conceptualizing experience as an unit of analysis. The questions are:  in what projects, regarding which situations, etc. We can conceptualize alternative units of analysis regarding one project. The issue is which of them will be more heuristic or more productive regarding our project. There are always competing conceptualizations, coming from different paradigmatic traditions or ways to look at the phenonon that is studied. We have to make a choice based on our epistemological and methodological expertese.

Just a few thoughts,

Lubomir