[Xmca-l] Re: Article on Positioning Theory

[Huw Lloyd]

On 27 March 2014 17:39, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Huw,
>
> Your reference to the relations of positioning TO Brandom's inferential
> perspectives and the methods which show its *genesis* was a pregnant
> thought. I hope you are able to expand on this relation.  Is this relation
> a reflection from your *inner thought* [which is abbreviated and condensed]
> or can this relation BETWEEN Harre and Brandom be expanded from specific
> readings?
>

Hi Larry,

Well, I am going by the phenomena pointed to and described by Donna's
"positioning".  I'm not sure whether I've read Harre.

>From an "inferential" perspective one may say that we are forever
monitoring each other's commitments and establishing de-facto expectations
(a kind of norm), such that if the conditions are infringed upon they can
be rather upsetting (i.e. a social basis of 'feeling').  To position
someone is, from an inferentialist perspective, to have undertaken such
"inferential calculus".

The "genesis" is basically the aim of science.  The aim of scientific
explanation is to explain how a phenomenon comes into being (which is one
of the reasons why Vygotsky makes for such great study).

I have provided some references below.  Both Pinkard and Derry are lucid
and make for good reading.  The following video might helpful too (I think
part 2 was where things get a bit more interesting):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdIPuERVjk0

I hope you find this helpful and interesting.

Best,
Huw

References

Pinkard, T. (2000) Hegel's Phenomenology and Logic: An Overview.  In: K.
Ameriks (ed.) *The Cambridge Companion to Idealism.*  Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press

Derry, J. (2013) Can Inferentialism Contribute to Social Epistemology? *Journal
of Philosophy of Education*, 47:2, pp. 222-235

Brandom, R. (1994) *Making it Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and
Discursive Commitment.  *Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.