From R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk Tue Sep 1 01:55:29 2015 From: R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk (Rod Parker-Rees) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 08:55:29 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <55E526CC.6080400@mira.net> References: <55E37E99.000004FA@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <12553216-10FA-4C70-8D8F-097266281640@gmail.com> <55E4EF7C.7090500@mira.net> <55E526CC.6080400@mira.net> Message-ID: <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC311027525EA@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> Thanks for posting this, Andy. I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his observation that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event isolated from other things or events. Its real object is to see and understand the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'. We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or less) on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but our communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using these categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of science but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use of language and more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The romantic focus on an 'individual' can only ever be conducted in the medium of a very un-individual language and no person's life could possibly be understood without reference to relationships with other persons which then spread roots and branches out to a forest of connections, causes and consequences. David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of theory if one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case and Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but the creative sources of great historical events and the important ideas and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the contribution individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than themselves but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want neither to split living reality into its elementary components nor to represent the wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that lose the properties of the phenomena themselves'. I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how all minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory associations which words bring with them in a way which, for most of us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that every person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface of a pool of connections and associations which can never be shared with or known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can only go so far in understanding another person's understanding and much less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone is a very different thing from being able to share that knowledge in a rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of the spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge is entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that swirl beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what lies beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young children are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so powerfully dominated by abstractions. All the best, Rod -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science Try this, in Word this time. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: > ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the > chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST be > somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. > > After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas seems > appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended essay's > on his view of Romantic Science. > > It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, were > not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of their > enterprise encompassed those fields and more. > > Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual case in > no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their work. > Nor does Luria argue so. > > mike > ? > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > I think the problem with this view of romantic science > is that it > completely precludes building a psychology on a > sociology. In that sense > (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist > at all. Vygotsky > certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the > individual case"; such > an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of > theory. I'm not sure > Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a > Shattered Mind" and > "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. > Remember the main > criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human > Conflicts" was always that > it was too quantitative. > > There are, of course, some areas of psychology that > are well studied as > case histories. Recently, I've been looking into > suicidology, and in > particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered > the linguistic > analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have > been influenced, as > early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work > on schizophrinia). > Now you would think that if ever there was a field > that would benefit from > total immersion in the individual case, this is one. > But Shneidman says > that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal > phrases, and as a > consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively > (one of his first > studies was simply to sort a pile of real and > imitation suicide notes and > carefully note the criteria he had when he made > correct judgements). And of > course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide > is that the individual > case can be utterly disregarded, since the great > variations are > sociological and the psychological variables all seem > trivial, transient, > or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a > large scale (as we must > these days). Shneidman says he has never read a > suicide note he would want > to have written. > > David Kellogg > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' > style of Romantic > > Science was his complete immersion in the individual > case before him, and > > development of a science of complete persons. The > paradigm of this type of > > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative > Science" I suppose. The > > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each > case, e.g. facial > > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a > "covering law" for just this > > aspect. > > Andy > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > > >> Mike, > >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that > naysayers were cited in > >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering > if some of that push back > >> was related to his practice of romantic science, > which, if I understand > >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in > the phenomena of > >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, > for example, immersed > >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His > writing prefigures the cell > >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of > microscopes could not confirm > >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner > and Sacks makes me > >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at > issue. Different styles > >> of research bring different construals. This may be > the bane of > >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really > make Sacks less of a > >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? > >> Henry > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole > > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our > connections with Luria and > >>> the fact that we > >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a > romantic science. He was a > >>> shy > >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, > and the difference > >>> between > >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the > interview with them that > >>> someone > >>> pirated on > >>> to youtube. > >>> > >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, > engaging intellectually all > >>> the while. > >>> > >>> mike > >>> > >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin > > > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the > privilege of spending an > >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting > Jerry Bruner and Carol > >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in for Sylvia who > couldn't make the dinner - it > >>>> was > >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you > ever hear from Bruner? I > >>>> wonder if he's still active. > >>>> > >>>> Laura > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Sent from my iPad > >>>> > >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole > > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Dear Colleagues --- > >>>> > >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news > that Oliver Sacks has > >>>> succumbed to cancer. > >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. > >>>> mike > >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>>> > >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM > >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; > Neurologist and Author > >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks > >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com > : Oliver Sacks Dies at > 82; Neurologist > >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks > >>>> < > >>>> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >>>> By > >>>> GREGORY COWLES > >>>> > >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest > pathways in > >>>> best-selling > >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife > for a Hat,? achieving > >>>> a > >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. > >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: > http://nyti.ms/1LL040D > >>>> < > >>>> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >>>> To > >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times > articles, subscribe today. > >>>> See > >>>> Subscription Options. > >>>> < > >>>> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwCIjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mPAvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >>>> To > >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add > nytdirect@nytimes.com > to your > >>>> address book. Advertisement > >>>> > >>>> < > >>>> > http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview > >>>> > > >>>> Copyright 2015 > >>>> < > >>>> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuPIxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 > >>>> > > >>>> | The New York Times Company > >>>> < > >>>> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcSh&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 > >>>> > > >>>> | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a > natural science with an > >>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a > natural science with an > >>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > ________________________________ [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form. From laure.kloetzer@gmail.com Tue Sep 1 06:57:09 2015 From: laure.kloetzer@gmail.com (Laure Kloetzer) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 15:57:09 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] PhD position, urgent Message-ID: Dear XMCA colleagues, Please find attached an announcement for a PhD position at the Institute of Psychology and Education, Neuch?tel, Switzerland, for a *French* (and English)-speaking candidate. It is focused on sociocultural/cultural-historical psychology, so please share with your students if relevant. Thank you for your help, Best regards, Laure Kloetzer -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PhD studentship_Neucha?tel.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 187798 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150901/ad88edeb/attachment-0001.pdf From Peg.Griffin@att.net Tue Sep 1 08:14:12 2015 From: Peg.Griffin@att.net (Peg Griffin) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 11:14:12 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC311027525EA@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> References: <55E37E99.000004FA@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <12553216-10FA-4C70-8D8F-097266281640@gmail.com> <55E4EF7C.7090500@mira.net> <55E526CC.6080400@mira.net> <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC311027525EA@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> Message-ID: <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and Sachs ? with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made (based on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill in each of the four cells in the square about an issue of interest. It helps me think about genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. Concrete Abstract Specific General A romantic square, Peg -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rod Parker-Rees Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science Thanks for posting this, Andy. I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his observation that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event isolated from other things or events. Its real object is to see and understand the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'. We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or less) on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but our communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using these categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of science but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use of language and more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The romantic focus on an 'individual' can only ever be conducted in the medium of a very un-individual language and no person's life could possibly be understood without reference to relationships with other persons which then spread roots and branches out to a forest of connections, causes and consequences. David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of theory if one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case and Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but the creative sources of great historical events and the important ideas and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the contribution individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than themselves but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want neither to split living reality into its elementary components nor to represent the wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that lose the properties of the phenomena themselves'. I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how all minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory associations which words bring with them in a way which, for most of us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that every person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface of a pool of connections and associations which can never be shared with or known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can only go so far in understanding another person's understanding and much less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone is a very different thing from being able to share that knowledge in a rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of the spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge is entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that swirl beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what lies beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young children are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so powerfully dominated by abstractions. All the best, Rod -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science Try this, in Word this time. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: > ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the > chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST be > somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. > > After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas seems > appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended essay's > on his view of Romantic Science. > > It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, were > not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of their > enterprise encompassed those fields and more. > > Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual case in > no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their work. > Nor does Luria argue so. > > mike > ? > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > I think the problem with this view of romantic science > is that it > completely precludes building a psychology on a > sociology. In that sense > (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist > at all. Vygotsky > certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the > individual case"; such > an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of > theory. I'm not sure > Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a > Shattered Mind" and > "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. > Remember the main > criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human > Conflicts" was always that > it was too quantitative. > > There are, of course, some areas of psychology that > are well studied as > case histories. Recently, I've been looking into > suicidology, and in > particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered > the linguistic > analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have > been influenced, as > early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work > on schizophrinia). > Now you would think that if ever there was a field > that would benefit from > total immersion in the individual case, this is one. > But Shneidman says > that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal > phrases, and as a > consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively > (one of his first > studies was simply to sort a pile of real and > imitation suicide notes and > carefully note the criteria he had when he made > correct judgements). And of > course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide > is that the individual > case can be utterly disregarded, since the great > variations are > sociological and the psychological variables all seem > trivial, transient, > or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a > large scale (as we must > these days). Shneidman says he has never read a > suicide note he would want > to have written. > > David Kellogg > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' > style of Romantic > > Science was his complete immersion in the individual > case before him, and > > development of a science of complete persons. The > paradigm of this type of > > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative > Science" I suppose. The > > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each > case, e.g. facial > > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a > "covering law" for just this > > aspect. > > Andy > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > > >> Mike, > >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that > naysayers were cited in > >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering > if some of that push back > >> was related to his practice of romantic science, > which, if I understand > >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in > the phenomena of > >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, > for example, immersed > >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His > writing prefigures the cell > >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of > microscopes could not confirm > >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner > and Sacks makes me > >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at > issue. Different styles > >> of research bring different construals. This may be > the bane of > >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really > make Sacks less of a > >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? > >> Henry > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole > > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our > connections with Luria and > >>> the fact that we > >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a > romantic science. He was a > >>> shy > >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, > and the difference > >>> between > >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the > interview with them that > >>> someone > >>> pirated on > >>> to youtube. > >>> > >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, > engaging intellectually all > >>> the while. > >>> > >>> mike > >>> > >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin > > > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the > privilege of spending an > >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting > Jerry Bruner and Carol > >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in for Sylvia who > couldn't make the dinner - it > >>>> was > >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you > ever hear from Bruner? I > >>>> wonder if he's still active. > >>>> > >>>> Laura > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Sent from my iPad > >>>> > >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole > > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Dear Colleagues --- > >>>> > >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news > that Oliver Sacks has > >>>> succumbed to cancer. > >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. > >>>> mike > >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>>> > >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM > >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; > Neurologist and Author > >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks > >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com > : Oliver Sacks Dies at > 82; Neurologist > >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks > >>>> < > >>>> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >>>> By > >>>> GREGORY COWLES > >>>> > >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest > pathways in > >>>> best-selling > >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife > for a Hat,? achieving > >>>> a > >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. > >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: > http://nyti.ms/1LL040D > >>>> < > >>>> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >>>> To > >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times > articles, subscribe today. > >>>> See > >>>> Subscription Options. > >>>> < > >>>> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwCIjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mPAvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >>>> To > >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add > nytdirect@nytimes.com > to your > >>>> address book. Advertisement > >>>> > >>>> < > >>>> > http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview > >>>> > > >>>> Copyright 2015 > >>>> < > >>>> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuPIxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 > >>>> > > >>>> | The New York Times Company > >>>> < > >>>> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcSh&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 > >>>> > > >>>> | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a > natural science with an > >>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a > natural science with an > >>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > ________________________________ [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form. From ablunden@mira.net Tue Sep 1 08:20:57 2015 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 01:20:57 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> References: <55E37E99.000004FA@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <12553216-10FA-4C70-8D8F-097266281640@gmail.com> <55E4EF7C.7090500@mira.net> <55E526CC.6080400@mira.net> <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC311027525EA@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> Message-ID: <55E5C259.9060101@mira.net> Could you give an example, Peg? andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and Sachs ? with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made (based on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill in each of the four cells in the square about an issue of interest. It helps me think about genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. > Concrete Abstract > Specific > General > > A romantic square, > Peg > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rod Parker-Rees > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM > To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > Thanks for posting this, Andy. > > I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his observation that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event isolated from other things or events. Its real object is to see and understand the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'. > > We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or less) on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but our communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using these categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of science but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use of language and more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The romantic focus on an 'individual' can only ever be conducted in the medium of a very un-individual language and no person's life could possibly be understood without reference to relationships with other persons which then spread roots and branches out to a forest of connections, causes and consequences. > > David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of theory if one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case and Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but the creative sources of great historical events and the important ideas and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the contribution individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than themselves but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want neither to split living reality into its elementary components nor to represent the wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that lose the properties of the phenomena themselves'. > > I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how all minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory associations which words bring with them in a way which, for most of us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that every person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface of a pool of connections and associations which can never be shared with or known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can only go so far in understanding another person's understanding and much less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone is a very different thing from being able to share that knowledge in a rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of the spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge is entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that swirl beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! > > I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what lies beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young children are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so powerfully dominated by abstractions. > > All the best, > > Rod > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > Try this, in Word this time. > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: >> ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the >> chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST be >> somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. >> >> After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas seems >> appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended essay's >> on his view of Romantic Science. >> >> It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, were >> not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of their >> enterprise encompassed those fields and more. >> >> Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual case in >> no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their work. >> Nor does Luria argue so. >> >> mike >> ? >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg > > wrote: >> >> I think the problem with this view of romantic science >> is that it >> completely precludes building a psychology on a >> sociology. In that sense >> (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist >> at all. Vygotsky >> certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the >> individual case"; such >> an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of >> theory. I'm not sure >> Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a >> Shattered Mind" and >> "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. >> Remember the main >> criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human >> Conflicts" was always that >> it was too quantitative. >> >> There are, of course, some areas of psychology that >> are well studied as >> case histories. Recently, I've been looking into >> suicidology, and in >> particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered >> the linguistic >> analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have >> been influenced, as >> early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work >> on schizophrinia). >> Now you would think that if ever there was a field >> that would benefit from >> total immersion in the individual case, this is one. >> But Shneidman says >> that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal >> phrases, and as a >> consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively >> (one of his first >> studies was simply to sort a pile of real and >> imitation suicide notes and >> carefully note the criteria he had when he made >> correct judgements). And of >> course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide >> is that the individual >> case can be utterly disregarded, since the great >> variations are >> sociological and the psychological variables all seem >> trivial, transient, >> or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a >> large scale (as we must >> these days). Shneidman says he has never read a >> suicide note he would want >> to have written. >> >> David Kellogg >> >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden >> > wrote: >> >> > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' >> style of Romantic >> > Science was his complete immersion in the individual >> case before him, and >> > development of a science of complete persons. The >> paradigm of this type of >> > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative >> Science" I suppose. The >> > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each >> case, e.g. facial >> > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a >> "covering law" for just this >> > aspect. >> > Andy >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> > *Andy Blunden* >> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> >> > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >> > >> >> Mike, >> >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that >> naysayers were cited in >> >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering >> if some of that push back >> >> was related to his practice of romantic science, >> which, if I understand >> >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in >> the phenomena of >> >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, >> for example, immersed >> >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His >> writing prefigures the cell >> >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of >> microscopes could not confirm >> >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner >> and Sacks makes me >> >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at >> issue. Different styles >> >> of research bring different construals. This may be >> the bane of >> >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really >> make Sacks less of a >> >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? >> >> Henry >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole >> > wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our >> connections with Luria and >> >>> the fact that we >> >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a >> romantic science. He was a >> >>> shy >> >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, >> and the difference >> >>> between >> >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the >> interview with them that >> >>> someone >> >>> pirated on >> >>> to youtube. >> >>> >> >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, >> engaging intellectually all >> >>> the while. >> >>> >> >>> mike >> >>> >> >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin >> > >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the >> privilege of spending an >> >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting >> Jerry Bruner and Carol >> >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in for Sylvia who >> couldn't make the dinner - it >> >>>> was >> >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you >> ever hear from Bruner? I >> >>>> wonder if he's still active. >> >>>> >> >>>> Laura >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Sent from my iPad >> >>>> >> >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole >> > wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Dear Colleagues --- >> >>>> >> >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news >> that Oliver Sacks has >> >>>> succumbed to cancer. >> >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. >> >>>> mike >> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >>>> >> >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM >> >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; >> Neurologist and Author >> >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks >> >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com >> : Oliver Sacks Dies at >> 82; Neurologist >> >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks >> >>>> < >> >>>> >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >> >>>> By >> >>>> GREGORY COWLES >> >>>> >> >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest >> pathways in >> >>>> best-selling >> >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife >> for a Hat,? achieving >> >>>> a >> >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. >> >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: >> http://nyti.ms/1LL040D >> >>>> < >> >>>> >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >> >>>> To >> >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times >> articles, subscribe today. >> >>>> See >> >>>> Subscription Options. >> >>>> < >> >>>> >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwCIjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mPAvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >> >>>> To >> >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add >> nytdirect@nytimes.com >> to your >> >>>> address book. Advertisement >> >>>> >> >>>> < >> >>>> >> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview >> >>>> > >> >>>> Copyright 2015 >> >>>> < >> >>>> >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuPIxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 >> >>>> > >> >>>> | The New York Times Company >> >>>> < >> >>>> >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcSh&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 >> >>>> > >> >>>> | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> >> >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a >> natural science with an >> >>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> -- >> >>> >> >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a >> natural science with an >> >>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an >> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >> >> >> > ________________________________ > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] > > This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form. > > > From annalisa@unm.edu Tue Sep 1 08:34:13 2015 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 15:34:13 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Something to smile about Message-ID: Greetings all, Just in case you wondered if anything happy is happening in the world, I thought to supply that wondering in the affirmative: http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2015/sep/01/gorilla-plays-peekaboo-toddler-columbus-zoo-video Kind regards, Annalisa From brucerob1953@googlemail.com Tue Sep 1 08:40:48 2015 From: brucerob1953@googlemail.com (Bruce Robinson) Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 16:40:48 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <55E5C259.9060101@mira.net> References: <55E37E99.000004FA@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <12553216-10FA-4C70-8D8F-097266281640@gmail.com> <55E4EF7C.7090500@mira.net> <55E526CC.6080400@mira.net> <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC311027525EA@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> <55E5C259.9060101@mira.net> Message-ID: <55E5C700.1000507@brucerob.eu> I posted this a while ago but it bouinced for reasons at my end. The Guardian obituary of Sacks is well worth reading and contains some useful quotes about his method and responses to it. From 'Awakenings': "There is nothing alive which is not individual: our health is ours; our diseases are ours; our reactions are ours ? no less than our minds or our faces.? From the obituary: " Sacks was such a resonant writer precisely because his sense of the importance of the personal and human, learned partly from his humane medical parents, is tempered by an equal attraction toward the abstract and scientific... ?The sum of anecdote is not evidence,? as the advocates of evidence-based medicine like to remind softer-minded folk, and they are right that personal experience often misleads, particularly in the context of medical treatment. And yet, one can imagine Sacks reflecting, anecdote is in fact precisely where evidence begins." I agree that Sacks' deep humanism, which has been widely commented on, is what makes him so appealing as a narrator and a human being. I heard him speak once on a panel in Manchester after seeing Peter Brook's staging of ' The Man Who Mistook...' which brought the case histories to life in a striking way and his commitment to the patients came across strongly. Bruce Robinson On 01/09/2015 16:20, Andy Blunden wrote: > Could you give an example, Peg? > andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: >> What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and Sachs ? >> with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made (based >> on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and Harrington >> Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill in each of >> the four cells in the square about an issue of interest. It helps >> me think about genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, >> too. >> Concrete Abstract >> Specific >> General >> >> A romantic square, >> Peg >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On >> Behalf Of Rod Parker-Rees >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM >> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >> >> Thanks for posting this, Andy. >> >> I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his >> reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his observation >> that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event isolated >> from other things or events. Its real object is to see and understand >> the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'. >> >> We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or >> less) on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but >> our communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using >> these categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of >> science but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use >> of language and more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The >> romantic focus on an 'individual' can only ever be conducted in the >> medium of a very un-individual language and no person's life could >> possibly be understood without reference to relationships with other >> persons which then spread roots and branches out to a forest of >> connections, causes and consequences. >> >> David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of theory >> if one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case and >> Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the >> concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but the >> creative sources of great historical events and the important ideas >> and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the contribution >> individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than >> themselves but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want >> neither to split living reality into its elementary components nor to >> represent the wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models >> that lose the properties of the phenomena themselves'. >> >> I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is >> particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how >> all minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been >> 'set' lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory >> associations which words bring with them in a way which, for most of >> us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a >> particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that every >> person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, >> behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface of a >> pool of connections and associations which can never be shared with >> or known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can >> only go so far in understanding another person's understanding and >> much less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone >> is a very different thing from being able to share that knowledge in >> a rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of the >> spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge is >> entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that swirl >> beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! >> >> I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what >> lies beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young >> children are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so >> powerfully dominated by abstractions. >> >> All the best, >> >> Rod >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu] >> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >> Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >> >> Try this, in Word this time. >> Andy >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: >>> ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the >>> chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST be >>> somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. >>> >>> After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas seems >>> appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended essay's >>> on his view of Romantic Science. >>> >>> It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, were >>> not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of their >>> enterprise encompassed those fields and more. >>> >>> Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual case in >>> no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their work. >>> Nor does Luria argue so. >>> >>> mike >>> ? >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg >> > wrote: >>> >>> I think the problem with this view of romantic science >>> is that it >>> completely precludes building a psychology on a >>> sociology. In that sense >>> (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist >>> at all. Vygotsky >>> certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the >>> individual case"; such >>> an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of >>> theory. I'm not sure >>> Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a >>> Shattered Mind" and >>> "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. >>> Remember the main >>> criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human >>> Conflicts" was always that >>> it was too quantitative. >>> >>> There are, of course, some areas of psychology that >>> are well studied as >>> case histories. Recently, I've been looking into >>> suicidology, and in >>> particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered >>> the linguistic >>> analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have >>> been influenced, as >>> early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work >>> on schizophrinia). >>> Now you would think that if ever there was a field >>> that would benefit from >>> total immersion in the individual case, this is one. >>> But Shneidman says >>> that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal >>> phrases, and as a >>> consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively >>> (one of his first >>> studies was simply to sort a pile of real and >>> imitation suicide notes and >>> carefully note the criteria he had when he made >>> correct judgements). And of >>> course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide >>> is that the individual >>> case can be utterly disregarded, since the great >>> variations are >>> sociological and the psychological variables all seem >>> trivial, transient, >>> or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a >>> large scale (as we must >>> these days). Shneidman says he has never read a >>> suicide note he would want >>> to have written. >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden >>> > wrote: >>> >>> > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' >>> style of Romantic >>> > Science was his complete immersion in the individual >>> case before him, and >>> > development of a science of complete persons. The >>> paradigm of this type of >>> > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative >>> Science" I suppose. The >>> > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each >>> case, e.g. facial >>> > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a >>> "covering law" for just this >>> > aspect. >>> > Andy >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> > *Andy Blunden* >>> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>> >>> > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >>> > >>> >> Mike, >>> >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that >>> naysayers were cited in >>> >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering >>> if some of that push back >>> >> was related to his practice of romantic science, >>> which, if I understand >>> >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in >>> the phenomena of >>> >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, >>> for example, immersed >>> >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His >>> writing prefigures the cell >>> >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of >>> microscopes could not confirm >>> >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner >>> and Sacks makes me >>> >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at >>> issue. Different styles >>> >> of research bring different construals. This may be >>> the bane of >>> >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really >>> make Sacks less of a >>> >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? >>> >> Henry >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole >>> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our >>> connections with Luria and >>> >>> the fact that we >>> >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a >>> romantic science. He was a >>> >>> shy >>> >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, >>> and the difference >>> >>> between >>> >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the >>> interview with them that >>> >>> someone >>> >>> pirated on >>> >>> to youtube. >>> >>> >>> >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, >>> engaging intellectually all >>> >>> the while. >>> >>> >>> >>> mike >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin >>> > >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the >>> privilege of spending an >>> >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting >>> Jerry Bruner and Carol >>> >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in for Sylvia who >>> couldn't make the dinner - it >>> >>>> was >>> >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you >>> ever hear from Bruner? I >>> >>>> wonder if he's still active. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Laura >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Dear Colleagues --- >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news >>> that Oliver Sacks has >>> >>>> succumbed to cancer. >>> >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. >>> >>>> mike >>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM >>> >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; >>> Neurologist and Author >>> >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks >>> >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com >>> : Oliver Sacks Dies at >>> 82; Neurologist >>> >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks >>> >>>> < >>> >>>> >>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >>> >>>> By >>> >>>> GREGORY COWLES >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest >>> pathways in >>> >>>> best-selling >>> >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife >>> for a Hat,? achieving >>> >>>> a >>> >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. >>> >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: >>> http://nyti.ms/1LL040D >>> >>>> < >>> >>>> >>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >>> >>>> To >>> >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times >>> articles, subscribe today. >>> >>>> See >>> >>>> Subscription Options. >>> >>>> < >>> >>>> >>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwCIjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mPAvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >>> >>>> To >>> >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add >>> nytdirect@nytimes.com >>> to your >>> >>>> address book. Advertisement >>> >>>> >>> >>>> < >>> >>>> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> Copyright 2015 >>> >>>> < >>> >>>> >>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuPIxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> | The New York Times Company >>> >>>> < >>> >>>> >>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcSh&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> -- >>> >>>> >>> >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a >>> natural science with an >>> >>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a >>> natural science with an >>> >>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an >>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>> >>> >>> >> ________________________________ >> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] >> >> >> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely >> for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not >> the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the >> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely >> on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender >> know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails >> are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth >> University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your >> responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth >> University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after >> it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an >> order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order >> form. >> >> >> > From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Sep 1 08:58:42 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 08:58:42 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <55E5C700.1000507@brucerob.eu> References: <55E37E99.000004FA@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <12553216-10FA-4C70-8D8F-097266281640@gmail.com> <55E4EF7C.7090500@mira.net> <55E526CC.6080400@mira.net> <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC311027525EA@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> <55E5C259.9060101@mira.net> <55E5C700.1000507@brucerob.eu> Message-ID: Brook also write and produced a play based, loosely, on Luria and the man with a shattered world. I have not seen it. mike On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Bruce Robinson wrote: > I posted this a while ago but it bouinced for reasons at my end. > > > The Guardian obituary of Sacks is well worth reading and contains some > useful quotes about his method and responses to it. > > From 'Awakenings': "There is nothing alive which is not individual: our > health is ours; our diseases are ours; our reactions are ours ? no less > than our minds or our faces.? > > From the obituary: > > " Sacks was such a resonant writer precisely because his sense of the > importance of the personal and human, learned partly from his humane > medical parents, is tempered by an equal attraction toward the abstract and > scientific... > > ?The sum of anecdote is not evidence,? as the advocates of evidence-based > medicine like to remind softer-minded folk, and they are right that > personal experience often misleads, particularly in the context of medical > treatment. And yet, one can imagine Sacks reflecting, anecdote is in fact > precisely where evidence begins." > > I agree that Sacks' deep humanism, which has been widely commented on, is > what makes him so appealing as a narrator and a human being. I heard him > speak once on a panel in Manchester after seeing Peter Brook's staging of ' > The Man Who Mistook...' which brought the case histories to life in a > striking way and his commitment to the patients came across strongly. > > Bruce Robinson > > > On 01/09/2015 16:20, Andy Blunden wrote: > >> Could you give an example, Peg? >> andy >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: >> >>> What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and Sachs ? >>> with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made (based on >>> the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham, I >>> heard). I can think better by working to fill in each of the four cells in >>> the square about an issue of interest. It helps me think about >>> genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. >>> Concrete Abstract >>> Specific >>> General >>> >>> A romantic square, >>> Peg >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rod >>> Parker-Rees >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM >>> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >>> >>> Thanks for posting this, Andy. >>> >>> I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his >>> reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his observation that >>> 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event isolated from other >>> things or events. Its real object is to see and understand the way a thing >>> or event relates to other things or events'. >>> >>> We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or less) >>> on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but our >>> communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using these >>> categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of science but >>> he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use of language and >>> more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The romantic focus on an >>> 'individual' can only ever be conducted in the medium of a very >>> un-individual language and no person's life could possibly be understood >>> without reference to relationships with other persons which then spread >>> roots and branches out to a forest of connections, causes and consequences. >>> >>> David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of theory if >>> one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case and Luria >>> cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the concrete'. As >>> Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but the creative sources of >>> great historical events and the important ideas and deeds remain' so, in >>> this sense, what matters is the contribution individuals make to something >>> bigger and more enduring than themselves but Luria also writes that >>> 'Romantics in science want neither to split living reality into its >>> elementary components nor to represent the wealth of life's concrete events >>> in abstract models that lose the properties of the phenomena themselves'. >>> >>> I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is >>> particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how all >>> minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' lower >>> than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory associations which >>> words bring with them in a way which, for most of us, may occur only at a >>> pre-conscious level. This provides a particularly powerful reminder of the >>> inescapable fact that every person's use of a shared language (whether of >>> words, gestures, behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the >>> surface of a pool of connections and associations which can never be shared >>> with or known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can >>> only go so far in understanding another person's understanding and much >>> less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone is a very >>> different thing from being able to share that knowledge in a rich and >>> meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of the spectrum, >>> classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge is entirely pure and >>> untainted by the personal associations that swirl beneath the limens of >>> their knowing are just inventing stories! >>> >>> I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what lies >>> beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young children are >>> able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so powerfully dominated >>> by abstractions. >>> >>> All the best, >>> >>> Rod >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu] >>> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >>> Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >>> >>> Try this, in Word this time. >>> Andy >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *Andy Blunden* >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>> On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: >>> >>>> ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the >>>> chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST be >>>> somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. >>>> >>>> After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas seems >>>> appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended essay's >>>> on his view of Romantic Science. >>>> >>>> It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, were >>>> not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of their >>>> enterprise encompassed those fields and more. >>>> >>>> Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual case in >>>> no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their work. >>>> Nor does Luria argue so. >>>> >>>> mike >>>> ? >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> I think the problem with this view of romantic science >>>> is that it >>>> completely precludes building a psychology on a >>>> sociology. In that sense >>>> (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist >>>> at all. Vygotsky >>>> certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the >>>> individual case"; such >>>> an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of >>>> theory. I'm not sure >>>> Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a >>>> Shattered Mind" and >>>> "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. >>>> Remember the main >>>> criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human >>>> Conflicts" was always that >>>> it was too quantitative. >>>> >>>> There are, of course, some areas of psychology that >>>> are well studied as >>>> case histories. Recently, I've been looking into >>>> suicidology, and in >>>> particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered >>>> the linguistic >>>> analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have >>>> been influenced, as >>>> early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work >>>> on schizophrinia). >>>> Now you would think that if ever there was a field >>>> that would benefit from >>>> total immersion in the individual case, this is one. >>>> But Shneidman says >>>> that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal >>>> phrases, and as a >>>> consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively >>>> (one of his first >>>> studies was simply to sort a pile of real and >>>> imitation suicide notes and >>>> carefully note the criteria he had when he made >>>> correct judgements). And of >>>> course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide >>>> is that the individual >>>> case can be utterly disregarded, since the great >>>> variations are >>>> sociological and the psychological variables all seem >>>> trivial, transient, >>>> or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a >>>> large scale (as we must >>>> these days). Shneidman says he has never read a >>>> suicide note he would want >>>> to have written. >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' >>>> style of Romantic >>>> > Science was his complete immersion in the individual >>>> case before him, and >>>> > development of a science of complete persons. The >>>> paradigm of this type of >>>> > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative >>>> Science" I suppose. The >>>> > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each >>>> case, e.g. facial >>>> > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a >>>> "covering law" for just this >>>> > aspect. >>>> > Andy >>>> > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> > *Andy Blunden* >>>> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>>> >>>> > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Mike, >>>> >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that >>>> naysayers were cited in >>>> >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering >>>> if some of that push back >>>> >> was related to his practice of romantic science, >>>> which, if I understand >>>> >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in >>>> the phenomena of >>>> >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, >>>> for example, immersed >>>> >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His >>>> writing prefigures the cell >>>> >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of >>>> microscopes could not confirm >>>> >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner >>>> and Sacks makes me >>>> >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at >>>> issue. Different styles >>>> >> of research bring different construals. This may be >>>> the bane of >>>> >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really >>>> make Sacks less of a >>>> >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? >>>> >> Henry >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our >>>> connections with Luria and >>>> >>> the fact that we >>>> >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a >>>> romantic science. He was a >>>> >>> shy >>>> >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, >>>> and the difference >>>> >>> between >>>> >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the >>>> interview with them that >>>> >>> someone >>>> >>> pirated on >>>> >>> to youtube. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, >>>> engaging intellectually all >>>> >>> the while. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> mike >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin >>>> > >>>> >>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the >>>> privilege of spending an >>>> >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting >>>> Jerry Bruner and Carol >>>> >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in for Sylvia who >>>> couldn't make the dinner - it >>>> >>>> was >>>> >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you >>>> ever hear from Bruner? I >>>> >>>> wonder if he's still active. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Laura >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Colleagues --- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news >>>> that Oliver Sacks has >>>> >>>> succumbed to cancer. >>>> >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. >>>> >>>> mike >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM >>>> >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; >>>> Neurologist and Author >>>> >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks >>>> >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com >>>> : Oliver Sacks Dies at >>>> 82; Neurologist >>>> >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks >>>> >>>> < >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 >>>> > >>>> >>>> By >>>> >>>> GREGORY COWLES >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest >>>> pathways in >>>> >>>> best-selling >>>> >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife >>>> for a Hat,? achieving >>>> >>>> a >>>> >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. >>>> >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: >>>> http://nyti.ms/1LL040D >>>> >>>> < >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 >>>> > >>>> >>>> To >>>> >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times >>>> articles, subscribe today. >>>> >>>> See >>>> >>>> Subscription Options. >>>> >>>> < >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwCIjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mPAvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 >>>> > >>>> >>>> To >>>> >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add >>>> nytdirect@nytimes.com >>>> to your >>>> >>>> address book. Advertisement >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> < >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> Copyright 2015 >>>> >>>> < >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuPIxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> | The New York Times Company >>>> >>>> < >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcSh&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a >>>> natural science with an >>>> >>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>>> >>> >>>> >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a >>>> natural science with an >>>> >>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an >>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]< >>> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> >>> >>> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely >>> for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the >>> intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the >>> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. >>> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know >>> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not >>> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts >>> no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails >>> and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility >>> for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its >>> attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied >>> by an official order form. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Sep 1 09:00:42 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 09:00:42 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Something to smile about In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Very thought provoking, Annalisa. mike On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > Greetings all, > > > Just in case you wondered if anything happy is happening in the world, I > thought to supply that wondering in the affirmative: > > > > http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2015/sep/01/gorilla-plays-peekaboo-toddler-columbus-zoo-video > > > > Kind regards, > > > Annalisa > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From hshonerd@gmail.com Tue Sep 1 10:18:06 2015 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 11:18:06 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Something to smile about In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <67873003-EA40-4E2F-A672-4E5C360765E9@gmail.com> Annalisa, I loved this. Thank you! A few days ago I listened to a podcast from All in the Mind from Australia?s Radio National titled ?Horses and Healing?. Interestingly, the healing one associates with therapy animals goes both way in this podcast: Traumatized humans and traumatized animals co-construct each other?s healing. They are both subject and object to each other. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/horses-and-healing/6656388 Almost daily, I walk the irrigation ditches in my neighborhood that have been part of the culture of the Rio Grande Valley ?bosque? (riparian forest) for hundreds of years. The bosque harbors wildlife, including ducks. The other day I learned that some neighborhood boys, accompanied by an adult, killed several of the baby ducks. A huge red flag for the life trajectories of children is cruelty to animals. I wonder if anything has been done in socio-cultural studies on the subject/object issues between humans and animals? Henry > On Sep 1, 2015, at 10:00 AM, mike cole wrote: > > Very thought provoking, Annalisa. > mike > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > >> Greetings all, >> >> >> Just in case you wondered if anything happy is happening in the world, I >> thought to supply that wondering in the affirmative: >> >> >> >> http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2015/sep/01/gorilla-plays-peekaboo-toddler-columbus-zoo-video >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> Annalisa >> > > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From annalisa@unm.edu Tue Sep 1 10:37:46 2015 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 17:37:46 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Something to smile about In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: mike, I guess I still got it! :) I hope you smiled! Henry, I think relating or learning to relate to other sentient creatures on the planet is imperative if we are to survive. If a child responds in play to a baby gorilla and vice versa, what is it that is being responded to in one to the other if they are different? Or is something there that is the same? Kind regards, Annalisa From brucerob1953@googlemail.com Tue Sep 1 10:40:25 2015 From: brucerob1953@googlemail.com (Bruce Robinson) Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 18:40:25 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Something to smile about In-Reply-To: <67873003-EA40-4E2F-A672-4E5C360765E9@gmail.com> References: <67873003-EA40-4E2F-A672-4E5C360765E9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55E5E309.5050305@brucerob.eu> I enjoyed it to. On human-animal relations, my girlfriend has a grandson Oisin who is nearly one year old. His family also have a soppy dog which thinks that the main function of humans is to throw balls for him to chase. The dog recognising Oisin as a potential playmate, dropped the ball into his lap. He, in turn, assuming that anything that he had been given must be food, tried eating it. A mismatch of learned expectations? Bruce R On 01/09/2015 18:18, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > Annalisa, > I loved this. Thank you! > > A few days ago I listened to a podcast from All in the Mind from Australia?s Radio National titled ?Horses and Healing?. Interestingly, the healing one associates with therapy animals goes both way in this podcast: Traumatized humans and traumatized animals co-construct each other?s healing. They are both subject and object to each other. > > http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/horses-and-healing/6656388 > > Almost daily, I walk the irrigation ditches in my neighborhood that have been part of the culture of the Rio Grande Valley ?bosque? (riparian forest) for hundreds of years. The bosque harbors wildlife, including ducks. The other day I learned that some neighborhood boys, accompanied by an adult, killed several of the baby ducks. A huge red flag for the life trajectories of children is cruelty to animals. I wonder if anything has been done in socio-cultural studies on the subject/object issues between humans and animals? > > Henry > >> On Sep 1, 2015, at 10:00 AM, mike cole wrote: >> >> Very thought provoking, Annalisa. >> mike >> >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: >> >>> Greetings all, >>> >>> >>> Just in case you wondered if anything happy is happening in the world, I >>> thought to supply that wondering in the affirmative: >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2015/sep/01/gorilla-plays-peekaboo-toddler-columbus-zoo-video >>> >>> >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> >>> Annalisa >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an >> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From Peg.Griffin@att.net Tue Sep 1 10:52:31 2015 From: Peg.Griffin@att.net (Peg Griffin) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 13:52:31 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <55E5C259.9060101@mira.net> References: <55E37E99.000004FA@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <12553216-10FA-4C70-8D8F-097266281640@gmail.com> <55E4EF7C.7090500@mira.net> <55E526CC.6080400@mira.net> <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC311027525EA@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> <55E5C259.9060101@mira.net> Message-ID: <000f01d0e4de$fb40b960$f1c22c20$@att.net> Just in a short-hand: Concrete Specific: Zasetsky (The man with the shattered world) Concrete General: People with traumatic brain injury during WWII Abstract General: Brain is a mosaic of specific domains with actions that interact in dual stimulations (not pure will) Abstract Specific: A man acts to recall using images; it fails on a certain target. The man starts appears to abandon the recall by acting an intimately related system ? e.g., reciting the alphabet. But the recital is ?interrupted? when it bumps into the original recall target and the recall is successful. For diagnosis and/or treatment, we must rise to the concrete specific. Sorry I don?t have time to develop this further but I am sure many on this list do, and I know that Luria and Sacks did so in wondrous and glorious instances. Peg From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:21 AM To: Peg Griffin; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science Could you give an example, Peg? andy _____ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and Sachs ? with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made (based on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill in each of the four cells in the square about an issue of interest. It helps me think about genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. Concrete Abstract Specific General A romantic square, Peg -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rod Parker-Rees Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science Thanks for posting this, Andy. I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his observation that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event isolated from other things or events. Its real object is to see and understand the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'. We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or less) on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but our communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using these categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of science but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use of language and more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The romantic focus on an 'individual' can only ever be conducted in the medium of a very un-individual language and no person's life could possibly be understood without reference to relationships with other persons which then spread roots and branches out to a forest of connections, causes and consequences. David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of theory if one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case and Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but the creative sources of great historical events and the important ideas and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the contribution individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than themselves but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want neither to split living reality into its elementary components nor to represent the wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that lose the properties of the phenomena themselves'. I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how all minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory associations which words bring with them in a way which, for most of us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that every person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface of a pool of connections and associations which can never be shared with or known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can only go so far in understanding another person's understanding and much less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone is a very different thing from being able to share that knowledge in a rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of the spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge is entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that swirl beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what lies beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young children are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so powerfully dominated by abstractions. All the best, Rod -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science Try this, in Word this time. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST be somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas seems appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended essay's on his view of Romantic Science. It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, were not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of their enterprise encompassed those fields and more. Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual case in no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their work. Nor does Luria argue so. mike ? On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: I think the problem with this view of romantic science is that it completely precludes building a psychology on a sociology. In that sense (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist at all. Vygotsky certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the individual case"; such an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of theory. I'm not sure Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a Shattered Mind" and "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. Remember the main criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human Conflicts" was always that it was too quantitative. There are, of course, some areas of psychology that are well studied as case histories. Recently, I've been looking into suicidology, and in particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered the linguistic analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have been influenced, as early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work on schizophrinia). Now you would think that if ever there was a field that would benefit from total immersion in the individual case, this is one. But Shneidman says that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal phrases, and as a consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively (one of his first studies was simply to sort a pile of real and imitation suicide notes and carefully note the criteria he had when he made correct judgements). And of course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide is that the individual case can be utterly disregarded, since the great variations are sociological and the psychological variables all seem trivial, transient, or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a large scale (as we must these days). Shneidman says he has never read a suicide note he would want to have written. David Kellogg On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden > wrote: > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' style of Romantic > Science was his complete immersion in the individual case before him, and > development of a science of complete persons. The paradigm of this type of > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative Science" I suppose. The > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each case, e.g. facial > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a "covering law" for just this > aspect. > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > >> Mike, >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that naysayers were cited in >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering if some of that push back >> was related to his practice of romantic science, which, if I understand >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in the phenomena of >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, for example, immersed >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His writing prefigures the cell >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of microscopes could not confirm >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner and Sacks makes me >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at issue. Different styles >> of research bring different construals. This may be the bane of >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really make Sacks less of a >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? >> Henry >> >> >> >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole > wrote: >>> >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our connections with Luria and >>> the fact that we >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a romantic science. He was a >>> shy >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, and the difference >>> between >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the interview with them that >>> someone >>> pirated on >>> to youtube. >>> >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, engaging intellectually all >>> the while. >>> >>> mike >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin > >>> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the privilege of spending an >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting Jerry Bruner and Carol >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in for Sylvia who couldn't make the dinner - it >>>> was >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you ever hear from Bruner? I >>>> wonder if he's still active. >>>> >>>> Laura >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole > wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Colleagues --- >>>> >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news that Oliver Sacks has >>>> succumbed to cancer. >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. >>>> mike >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; Neurologist and Author >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com : Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; Neurologist >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks >>>> < >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4a &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >>>> By >>>> GREGORY COWLES >>>> >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest pathways in >>>> best-selling >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat,? achieving >>>> a >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://nyti.ms/1LL040D >>>> < >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4a &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >>>> To >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times articles, subscribe today. >>>> See >>>> Subscription Options. >>>> < >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwCIjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mPAvEGfk= &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >>>> To >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add nytdirect@nytimes.com to your >>>> address book. Advertisement >>>> >>>> < >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto &opzn&page=secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview >>>> > >>>> Copyright 2015 >>>> < >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuPIxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ== &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 >>>> > >>>> | The New York Times Company >>>> < >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcSh &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 >>>> > >>>> | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an >>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an >>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>> >> >> >> > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch ________________________________ [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form. From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Sep 1 11:08:21 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 11:08:21 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <000f01d0e4de$fb40b960$f1c22c20$@att.net> References: <55E37E99.000004FA@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <12553216-10FA-4C70-8D8F-097266281640@gmail.com> <55E4EF7C.7090500@mira.net> <55E526CC.6080400@mira.net> <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC311027525EA@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> <55E5C259.9060101@mira.net> <000f01d0e4de$fb40b960$f1c22c20$@att.net> Message-ID: Is that simultaneously uniting the nomothetic and idiographic, Peg? That is the way Luria talked about it. mike On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > Just in a short-hand: > > Concrete Specific: Zasetsky (The man with the shattered world) > > Concrete General: People with traumatic brain injury during WWII > > Abstract General: Brain is a mosaic of specific domains with actions that > interact in dual stimulations (not pure will) > > Abstract Specific: A man acts to recall using images; it fails on a > certain target. The man starts appears to abandon the recall by acting an > intimately related system ? e.g., reciting the alphabet. But the recital > is ?interrupted? when it bumps into the original recall target and the > recall is successful. > > > > For diagnosis and/or treatment, we must rise to the concrete specific. > > > > Sorry I don?t have time to develop this further but I am sure many on this > list do, and I know that Luria and Sacks did so in wondrous and glorious > instances. > > Peg > > > > > > From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net] > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:21 AM > To: Peg Griffin; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > Could you give an example, Peg? > andy > > _____ > > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > > What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and Sachs ? with > rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made (based on the > even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham, I > heard). I can think better by working to fill in each of the four cells in > the square about an issue of interest. It helps me think about > genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. > Concrete Abstract > Specific > General > > A romantic square, > Peg > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rod > Parker-Rees > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM > To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > Thanks for posting this, Andy. > > I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his reference > to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his observation that 'The eye of > science does not probe ?a thing,? an event isolated from other things or > events. Its real object is to see and understand the way a thing or event > relates to other things or events'. > > We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or less) on > ways of organising experience into shareable categories but our > communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using these > categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of science but > he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use of language and > more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The romantic focus on an > 'individual' can only ever be conducted in the medium of a very > un-individual language and no person's life could possibly be understood > without reference to relationships with other persons which then spread > roots and branches out to a forest of connections, causes and consequences. > > David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of theory if one > were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case and Luria cites > Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the concrete'. As Luria goes > on to conclude 'People come and go, but the creative sources of great > historical events and the important ideas and deeds remain' so, in this > sense, what matters is the contribution individuals make to something > bigger and more enduring than themselves but Luria also writes that > 'Romantics in science want neither to split living reality into its > elementary components nor to represent the wealth of life's concrete events > in abstract models that lose the properties of the phenomena themselves'. > > I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is > particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how all > minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' lower > than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory associations which > words bring with them in a way which, for most of us, may occur only at a > pre-conscious level. This provides a particularly powerful reminder of the > inescapable fact that every person's use of a shared language (whether of > words, gestures, behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the > surface of a pool of connections and associations which can never be shared > with or known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can > only go so far in understanding another person's understanding and much > less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone is a very > different thing from being able to share that knowledge in a rich and > meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of the > spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge is > entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that swirl beneath > the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! > > I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what lies > beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young children are > able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so powerfully dominated > by abstractions. > > All the best, > > Rod > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu] > On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > Try this, in Word this time. > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: > > ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the > chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST be > somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. > > After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas seems > appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended essay's > on his view of Romantic Science. > > It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, were > not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of their > enterprise encompassed those fields and more. > > Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual case in > no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their work. > Nor does Luria argue so. > > mike > ? > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > I think the problem with this view of romantic science > is that it > completely precludes building a psychology on a > sociology. In that sense > (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist > at all. Vygotsky > certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the > individual case"; such > an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of > theory. I'm not sure > Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a > Shattered Mind" and > "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. > Remember the main > criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human > Conflicts" was always that > it was too quantitative. > > There are, of course, some areas of psychology that > are well studied as > case histories. Recently, I've been looking into > suicidology, and in > particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered > the linguistic > analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have > been influenced, as > early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work > on schizophrinia). > Now you would think that if ever there was a field > that would benefit from > total immersion in the individual case, this is one. > But Shneidman says > that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal > phrases, and as a > consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively > (one of his first > studies was simply to sort a pile of real and > imitation suicide notes and > carefully note the criteria he had when he made > correct judgements). And of > course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide > is that the individual > case can be utterly disregarded, since the great > variations are > sociological and the psychological variables all seem > trivial, transient, > or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a > large scale (as we must > these days). Shneidman says he has never read a > suicide note he would want > to have written. > > David Kellogg > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden > ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: > > > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' > style of Romantic > > Science was his complete immersion in the individual > case before him, and > > development of a science of complete persons. The > paradigm of this type of > > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative > Science" I suppose. The > > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each > case, e.g. facial > > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a > "covering law" for just this > > aspect. > > Andy > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > < > http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/> > > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > > >> Mike, > >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that > naysayers were cited in > >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering > if some of that push back > >> was related to his practice of romantic science, > which, if I understand > >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in > the phenomena of > >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, > for example, immersed > >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His > writing prefigures the cell > >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of > microscopes could not confirm > >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner > and Sacks makes me > >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at > issue. Different styles > >> of research bring different construals. This may be > the bane of > >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really > make Sacks less of a > >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? > >> Henry > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole > > > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our > connections with Luria and > >>> the fact that we > >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a > romantic science. He was a > >>> shy > >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, > and the difference > >>> between > >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the > interview with them that > >>> someone > >>> pirated on > >>> to youtube. > >>> > >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, > engaging intellectually all > >>> the while. > >>> > >>> mike > >>> > >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin > martinl@azscience.org>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the > privilege of spending an > >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting > Jerry Bruner and Carol > >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in for Sylvia who > couldn't make the dinner - it > >>>> was > >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you > ever hear from Bruner? I > >>>> wonder if he's still active. > >>>> > >>>> Laura > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Sent from my iPad > >>>> > >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole > > > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Dear Colleagues --- > >>>> > >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news > that Oliver Sacks has > >>>> succumbed to cancer. > >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. > >>>> mike > >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>>> > >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM > >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; > Neurologist and Author > >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks > >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com lchcmike@gmail.com> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com > : > Oliver Sacks Dies at > 82; Neurologist > >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks > >>>> < > >>>> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4a < > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >>>> By > >>>> GREGORY COWLES > >>>> > >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest > pathways in > >>>> best-selling > >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife > for a Hat,? achieving > >>>> a > >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. > >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: > http://nyti.ms/1LL040D > >>>> < > >>>> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4a < > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >>>> To > >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times > articles, subscribe today. > >>>> See > >>>> Subscription Options. > >>>> < > >>>> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwCIjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mPAvEGfk= > < > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwCIjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mPAvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >>>> To > >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add > nytdirect@nytimes.com nytdirect@nytimes.com> > to your > >>>> address book. Advertisement > >>>> > >>>> < > >>>> > http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto < > http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview> > &opzn&page= > secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview > >>>> > > >>>> Copyright 2015 > >>>> < > >>>> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuPIxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ== > < > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuPIxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 > >>>> > > >>>> | The New York Times Company > >>>> < > >>>> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcSh < > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcSh&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 > >>>> > > >>>> | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a > natural science with an > >>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a > natural science with an > >>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > ________________________________ > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] < > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> < > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for > the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the > intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the > information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. > If you have received this email in error please let the sender know > immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not > necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts > no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails > and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility > for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its > attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied > by an official order form. > > > > > > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From Peg.Griffin@att.net Tue Sep 1 11:54:47 2015 From: Peg.Griffin@att.net (Peg Griffin) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 14:54:47 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: References: <55E37E99.000004FA@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <12553216-10FA-4C70-8D8F-097266281640@gmail.com> <55E4EF7C.7090500@mira.net> <55E526CC.6080400@mira.net> <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC311027525EA@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> <55E5C259.9060101@mira.net> <000f01d0e4de$fb40b960$f1c22c20$@att.net> Message-ID: <001701d0e4e7$ad752be0$085f83a0$@att.net> As far as I understand those terms (nomothetic and idiographic), the combined motor method does unite them and so arrives at dual stimulation, given the non-accidental mosaic. But I don't know that my understanding goes far enough or too far! Peg -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:08 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science Is that simultaneously uniting the nomothetic and idiographic, Peg? That is the way Luria talked about it. mike On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > Just in a short-hand: > > Concrete Specific: Zasetsky (The man with the shattered world) > > Concrete General: People with traumatic brain injury during WWII > > Abstract General: Brain is a mosaic of specific domains with actions > that interact in dual stimulations (not pure will) > > Abstract Specific: A man acts to recall using images; it fails on a > certain target. The man starts appears to abandon the recall by > acting an intimately related system ? e.g., reciting the alphabet. > But the recital is ?interrupted? when it bumps into the original > recall target and the recall is successful. > > > > For diagnosis and/or treatment, we must rise to the concrete specific. > > > > Sorry I don?t have time to develop this further but I am sure many on > this list do, and I know that Luria and Sacks did so in wondrous and > glorious instances. > > Peg > > > > > > From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net] > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:21 AM > To: Peg Griffin; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > Could you give an example, Peg? > andy > > _____ > > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > > What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and Sachs ? > with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made (based > on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and Harrington > Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill in each of the four cells in > the square about an issue of interest. It helps me think about > genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. > Concrete Abstract > Specific > General > > A romantic square, > Peg > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rod > Parker-Rees > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM > To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > Thanks for posting this, Andy. > > I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his > reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his observation > that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event isolated > from other things or events. Its real object is to see and understand > the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'. > > We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or less) > on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but our > communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using these > categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of science > but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use of > language and more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The > romantic focus on an 'individual' can only ever be conducted in the > medium of a very un-individual language and no person's life could > possibly be understood without reference to relationships with other > persons which then spread roots and branches out to a forest of connections, causes and consequences. > > David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of theory if > one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case and > Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the > concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but the > creative sources of great historical events and the important ideas > and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the contribution > individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than themselves > but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want neither to split > living reality into its elementary components nor to represent the > wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that lose the properties of the phenomena themselves'. > > I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is > particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how all > minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' > lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory > associations which words bring with them in a way which, for most of > us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a > particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that every > person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, > behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface of a > pool of connections and associations which can never be shared with or > known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can only > go so far in understanding another person's understanding and much > less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone is a > very different thing from being able to share that knowledge in a > rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of the > spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge is > entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that swirl beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! > > I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what lies > beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young children > are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so powerfully > dominated by abstractions. > > All the best, > > Rod > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > ] > On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > Try this, in Word this time. > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: > > ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the > chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST be > somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. > > After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas seems > appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended essay's > on his view of Romantic Science. > > It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, were > not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of their > enterprise encompassed those fields and more. > > Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual case in > no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their work. > Nor does Luria argue so. > > mike > ? > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > I think the problem with this view of romantic science > is that it > completely precludes building a psychology on a > sociology. In that sense > (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist > at all. Vygotsky > certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the > individual case"; such > an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of > theory. I'm not sure > Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a > Shattered Mind" and > "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. > Remember the main > criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human > Conflicts" was always that > it was too quantitative. > > There are, of course, some areas of psychology that > are well studied as > case histories. Recently, I've been looking into > suicidology, and in > particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered > the linguistic > analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have > been influenced, as > early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work > on schizophrinia). > Now you would think that if ever there was a field > that would benefit from > total immersion in the individual case, this is one. > But Shneidman says > that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal > phrases, and as a > consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively > (one of his first > studies was simply to sort a pile of real and > imitation suicide notes and > carefully note the criteria he had when he made > correct judgements). And of > course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide > is that the individual > case can be utterly disregarded, since the great > variations are > sociological and the psychological variables all seem > trivial, transient, > or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a > large scale (as we must > these days). Shneidman says he has never read a > suicide note he would want > to have written. > > David Kellogg > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden > ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: > > > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' > style of Romantic > > Science was his complete immersion in the individual > case before him, and > > development of a science of complete persons. The > paradigm of this type of > > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative > Science" I suppose. The > > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each > case, e.g. facial > > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a > "covering law" for just this > > aspect. > > Andy > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > < > http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/> > > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > > >> Mike, > >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that > naysayers were cited in > >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering > if some of that push back > >> was related to his practice of romantic science, > which, if I understand > >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in > the phenomena of > >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, > for example, immersed > >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His > writing prefigures the cell > >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of > microscopes could not confirm > >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner > and Sacks makes me > >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at > issue. Different styles > >> of research bring different construals. This may be > the bane of > >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really > make Sacks less of a > >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? > >> Henry > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole > > > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our > connections with Luria and > >>> the fact that we > >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a > romantic science. He was a > >>> shy > >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, > and the difference > >>> between > >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the > interview with them that > >>> someone > >>> pirated on > >>> to youtube. > >>> > >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, > engaging intellectually all > >>> the while. > >>> > >>> mike > >>> > >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin > martinl@azscience.org>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the > privilege of spending an > >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting > Jerry Bruner and Carol > >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in for Sylvia who > couldn't make the dinner - it > >>>> was > >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you > ever hear from Bruner? I > >>>> wonder if he's still active. > >>>> > >>>> Laura > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Sent from my iPad > >>>> > >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole > > > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Dear Colleagues --- > >>>> > >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news > that Oliver Sacks has > >>>> succumbed to cancer. > >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. > >>>> mike > >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>>> > >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM > >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; > Neurologist and Author > >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks > >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com lchcmike@gmail.com> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com > : > Oliver Sacks Dies at > 82; Neurologist > >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks > >>>> < > >>>> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > a < > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 > 972441657668®i_id=0> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >>>> By > >>>> GREGORY COWLES > >>>> > >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest > pathways in > >>>> best-selling > >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife > for a Hat,? achieving > >>>> a > >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. > >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: > http://nyti.ms/1LL040D > >>>> < > >>>> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > a < > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 > 972441657668®i_id=0> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >>>> To > >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times > articles, subscribe today. > >>>> See > >>>> Subscription Options. > >>>> < > >>>> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC > IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP > AvEGfk= > < > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC > IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP > AvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_i > d=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >>>> To > >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add > nytdirect@nytimes.com nytdirect@nytimes.com> > to your > >>>> address book. Advertisement > >>>> > >>>> < > >>>> > http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto < > http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secu > re.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn > 1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=Mis > tressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistr > essamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview> > &opzn&page= > secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview > >>>> > > >>>> Copyright 2015 > >>>> < > >>>> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP > IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ== > < > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP > IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31 > 502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668&r > egi_id=0> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 > >>>> > > >>>> | The New York Times Company > >>>> < > >>>> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcS > h < > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcS > h&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 > 972441657668®i_id=0> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 > >>>> > > >>>> | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a > natural science with an > >>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a > natural science with an > >>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > ________________________________ > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] < > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> < > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely > for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not > the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the > information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. > If you have received this email in error please let the sender know > immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not > necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University > accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to > scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept > responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this > email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services > unless accompanied by an official order form. > > > > > > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From h2cmng@yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 1 13:52:41 2015 From: h2cmng@yahoo.co.uk (peter jones) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 20:52:41 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science & Speed of Political Action ? In-Reply-To: <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> References: <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> Message-ID: <203437239.5267772.1441140761314.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Just reading recent posts including Peg's mention of :?'A romantic square':Concrete??? Abstract Specific??? ????General???? ====These 'continua' and many others can (in different ways?) be incorporated - cognitively at least - into Hodges' model - a JoHari window (hybrid?): http://hodges-model.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=johari Huw's post 28th August also caught my attention - key words drawing together in the MECHANSTIC confluence of the POLITICAL-SCIENCES domains which I highlight below:==========In my limited experience and thinking, special ops police forces seem to have two distinct characteristics.? The first is the focus on catching criminals in criminal activities rather than educating people against them.? The second is a preference for militarised operations, rather than standardised policing. I would guess that (an argument for) the appropriate time to take such measures is when there are no other resources available to protect something of obvious felt importance that is also felt to be clearly at risk, that doesn't seem to be the case in this protest.? I wonder whether such morality could be institutionalised into police practice, i.e. to legitimately boycott operations that do not meet those criteria. Huw=== This fits in with the MECHANISTIC dimension of the model which combines the SCIENCES domain (force(s), operations, measures) and POLITICAL (police, operations, institution)....It also begs the questions that (may) arise: when the 'reflex' that is a scientific neural arc is transformed into militarised operations (police responses) dire consequences may ensue.Where is the conscious of the group vs that of the individual how can they be expressed simultaneously (they cannot in this situation)??Is discipline 'drummed' in or is it 'drummed' out assuring an institutionalised response (command structure)?what is legitimate?'Measures' may take an interesting 'turn' with police videocams?What is the status of police unions - and individual action??What goes un-stated but speaks loudest?: power, coercion, intimidation, non-verbal communication, speed, presence, numbers, equipment (hard-ware).....!!! Regards,?Peter Jones Blogging at "Welcome to the QUAD" http://hodges-model.blogspot.com/ Hodges Health Career - Care Domains - Model h2cm: help 2C more - help 2 listen - help 2 care http://twitter.com/h2cm From: Peg Griffin To: "'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'" ; ablunden@mira.net Sent: Tuesday, 1 September 2015, 16:14 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and Sachs ? with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made (based on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill in each of the four cells in the square about an issue of interest.? It helps me think about genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. ??? Concrete??? Abstract Specific??? ??? General??? ??? A romantic square, Peg -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rod Parker-Rees Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science Thanks for posting this, Andy. I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his observation that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event isolated from other things or events. Its real object is to see and understand the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'. We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or less) on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but our communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using these categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of science but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use of language and more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The romantic focus on an 'individual' can only ever be conducted in the medium of a very un-individual language and no person's life could possibly be understood without reference to relationships with other persons which then spread roots and branches out to a forest of connections, causes and consequences. David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of theory if one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case and Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but the creative sources of great historical events and the important ideas and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the contribution individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than themselves but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want neither to split living reality into its elementary components nor to represent the wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that lose the properties of the phenomena themselves'. I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how all minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory associations which words bring with them in a way which, for most of us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that every person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface of a pool of connections and associations which can never be shared with or known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can only go so far in understanding another person's understanding and much less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone is a very different thing from being able to share that knowledge in a? rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of the spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge is entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that swirl beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what lies beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young children are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so powerfully dominated by abstractions. All the best, Rod -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science Try this, in Word this time. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: > ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the > chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST be > somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. > > After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas seems > appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended essay's > on his view of Romantic Science. > > It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, were > not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of their > enterprise encompassed those fields and more. > > Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual case in > no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their work. > Nor does Luria argue so. > > mike > ? > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > >? ? I think the problem with this view of romantic science >? ? is that it >? ? completely precludes building a psychology on a >? ? sociology. In that sense >? ? (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist >? ? at all. Vygotsky >? ? certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the >? ? individual case"; such >? ? an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of >? ? theory. I'm not sure >? ? Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a >? ? Shattered Mind" and >? ? "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. >? ? Remember the main >? ? criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human >? ? Conflicts" was always that >? ? it was too quantitative. > >? ? There are, of course, some areas of psychology that >? ? are well studied as >? ? case histories. Recently, I've been looking into >? ? suicidology, and in >? ? particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered >? ? the linguistic >? ? analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have >? ? been influenced, as >? ? early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work >? ? on schizophrinia). >? ? Now you would think that if ever there was a field >? ? that would benefit from >? ? total immersion in the individual case, this is one. >? ? But Shneidman says >? ? that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal >? ? phrases, and as a >? ? consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively >? ? (one of his first >? ? studies was simply to sort a pile of real and >? ? imitation suicide notes and >? ? carefully note the criteria he had when he made >? ? correct judgements). And of >? ? course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide >? ? is that the individual >? ? case can be utterly disregarded, since the great >? ? variations are >? ? sociological and the psychological variables all seem >? ? trivial, transient, >? ? or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a >? ? large scale (as we must >? ? these days). Shneidman says he has never read a >? ? suicide note he would want >? ? to have written. > >? ? David Kellogg > > > >? ? On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden >? ? > wrote: > >? ? > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' >? ? style of Romantic >? ? > Science was his complete immersion in the individual >? ? case before him, and >? ? > development of a science of complete persons. The >? ? paradigm of this type of >? ? > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative >? ? Science" I suppose. The >? ? > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each >? ? case, e.g. facial >? ? > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a >? ? "covering law" for just this >? ? > aspect. >? ? > Andy >? ? > >? ? ------------------------------------------------------------ >? ? > *Andy Blunden* >? ? > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >? ? >? ? > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >? ? > >? ? >> Mike, >? ? >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that >? ? naysayers were cited in >? ? >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering >? ? if some of that push back >? ? >> was related to his practice of romantic science, >? ? which, if I understand >? ? >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in >? ? the phenomena of >? ? >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, >? ? for example, immersed >? ? >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His >? ? writing prefigures the cell >? ? >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of >? ? microscopes could not confirm >? ? >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner >? ? and Sacks makes me >? ? >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at >? ? issue. Different styles >? ? >> of research bring different construals. This may be >? ? the bane of >? ? >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really >? ? make Sacks less of a >? ? >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? >? ? >> Henry >? ? >> >? ? >> >? ? >> >? ? >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole >? ? > wrote: >? ? >>> >? ? >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our >? ? connections with Luria and >? ? >>> the fact that we >? ? >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a >? ? romantic science. He was a >? ? >>> shy >? ? >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, >? ? and the difference >? ? >>> between >? ? >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the >? ? interview with them that >? ? >>> someone >? ? >>> pirated on >? ? >>> to youtube. >? ? >>> >? ? >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, >? ? engaging intellectually all >? ? >>> the while. >? ? >>> >? ? >>> mike >? ? >>> >? ? >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin >? ? > >? ? >>> wrote: >? ? >>> >? ? >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the >? ? privilege of spending an >? ? >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting >? ? Jerry Bruner and Carol >? ? >>>> Feldman in NY.? I stood in for Sylvia who >? ? couldn't make the dinner - it >? ? >>>> was >? ? >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you >? ? ever hear from Bruner? I >? ? >>>> wonder if he's still active. >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> Laura >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> Sent from my iPad >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole >? ? > wrote: >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> Dear Colleagues --- >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news >? ? that Oliver Sacks has >? ? >>>> succumbed to cancer. >? ? >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. >? ? >>>> mike >? ? >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM >? ? >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; >? ? Neurologist and Author >? ? >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks >? ? >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>>? Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com >? ? : Oliver Sacks Dies at >? ? 82; Neurologist >? ? >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks >? ? >>>> < >? ? >>>> >? ? http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668?i_id=0> >? ? >>>> By >? ? >>>> GREGORY COWLES >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest >? ? pathways in >? ? >>>> best-selling >? ? >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife >? ? for a Hat,? achieving >? ? >>>> a >? ? >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. >? ? >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: >? ? http://nyti.ms/1LL040D >? ? >>>> < >? ? >>>> >? ? http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668?i_id=0> >? ? >>>> To >? ? >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times >? ? articles, subscribe today. >? ? >>>> See >? ? >>>> Subscription Options. >? ? >>>> < >? ? >>>> >? ? http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwCIjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mPAvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668?i_id=0> >? ? >>>> To >? ? >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add >? ? nytdirect@nytimes.com >? ? to your >? ? >>>> address book. Advertisement >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> < >? ? >>>> >? ? http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview >? ? >>>> > >? ? >>>> Copyright 2015 >? ? >>>> < >? ? >>>> >? ? http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuPIxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668?i_id=0 >? ? >>>> > >? ? >>>> | The New York Times Company >? ? >>>> < >? ? >>>> >? ? http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcSh&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668?i_id=0 >? ? >>>> > >? ? >>>> | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> -- >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a >? ? natural science with an >? ? >>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> >? ? >>> -- >? ? >>> >? ? >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a >? ? natural science with an >? ? >>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >? ? >>> >? ? >> >? ? >> >? ? >> >? ? > > > > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > ________________________________ [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form. From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Sep 1 14:38:12 2015 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 06:38:12 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science & Speed of Political Action ? In-Reply-To: <203437239.5267772.1441140761314.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> <203437239.5267772.1441140761314.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Suppose we want to distinguish between the set of all utterances ever spoken or written in a language (we could use English, but it might be a little easier to imagine if we use a dead language, preferably one that can no longer be reconstructed, like Neanderthal) and a specific utterance spoken at a particular instance by a single individual person. That's what Halliday calls the "cline of instantiation", and I think we can say it corresponds to Peg's axis of general to specific. It's a cline, and not a two by two matrix, because almost everything we are interested in studying is somewhere in between: texts, types of texts, genres, etc. On the other hand, at each point on the continuum we also want to distinguish between semantics (what Vygotsky calls "thinking"), lexicgrammar (not just words but "wordings", what Vygotsky calls "speech"), and phonology-phonetics (what Vygotsky calls "sound complexes"). That's what Halliday calls the "cline of realization", and I think we can say it corresponds to Peg's axis of abstract to concrete. Once again, it's a cline and not a two by two matrix, and one again the bits worth studying are somewhere in between. Notice that nowhere is the axis of "ideal/material" really relevant. Along the cline of instantiation, everything is in the final analysis material, although the further we get to the general end of the continuum the more we are going to have to rely on our own imaginations. Along the cline of realization, the distinction is not so much "ideal/material" as "potential/actual". That's how Vygotsky distinguishes between "signification" and "sense"--they are both areas of the semantics, but one of them is more actual and the other more potential, which is why the area of signification is "larger", more shareable, and thus more stable. David Kellogg On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:52 AM, peter jones wrote: > Just reading recent posts including Peg's mention of : 'A romantic > square':Concrete Abstract > Specific General > ====These 'continua' and many others can (in different ways?) be > incorporated - cognitively at least - into Hodges' model - a JoHari window > (hybrid?): > http://hodges-model.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=johari > > Huw's post 28th August also caught my attention - key words drawing > together in the MECHANSTIC confluence of the POLITICAL-SCIENCES domains > which I highlight below:==========In my limited experience and thinking, > special ops police forces seem to > have two distinct characteristics. The first is the focus on catching > criminals in criminal activities rather than educating people against > them. The second is a preference for militarised operations, rather than > standardised policing. I would guess that (an argument for) the appropriate > time to take such measures is when there are no other resources available > to protect something of obvious felt importance that is also felt to be > clearly at risk, that doesn't seem to be the case in this protest. I > wonder whether such morality could be institutionalised into police > practice, i.e. to legitimately boycott operations that do not meet those > criteria. > > Huw=== > This fits in with the MECHANISTIC dimension of the model which combines > the SCIENCES domain (force(s), operations, measures) and POLITICAL (police, > operations, institution)....It also begs the questions that (may) arise: > when the 'reflex' that is a scientific neural arc is transformed into > militarised operations (police responses) dire consequences may ensue.Where > is the conscious of the group vs that of the individual how can they be > expressed simultaneously (they cannot in this situation)? Is discipline > 'drummed' in or is it 'drummed' out assuring an institutionalised response > (command structure)?what is legitimate?'Measures' may take an interesting > 'turn' with police videocams?What is the status of police unions - and > individual action? What goes un-stated but speaks loudest?: power, > coercion, intimidation, non-verbal communication, speed, presence, numbers, > equipment (hard-ware).....!!! > Regards, Peter Jones > Blogging at "Welcome to the QUAD" > http://hodges-model.blogspot.com/ > Hodges Health Career - Care Domains - Model > h2cm: help 2C more - help 2 listen - help 2 care > http://twitter.com/h2cm > From: Peg Griffin > To: "'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'" ; > ablunden@mira.net > Sent: Tuesday, 1 September 2015, 16:14 > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and Sachs ? with > rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made (based on the > even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham, I > heard). I can think better by working to fill in each of the four cells in > the square about an issue of interest. It helps me think about genetically > primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. > Concrete Abstract > Specific > General > > A romantic square, > Peg > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rod > Parker-Rees > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM > To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > Thanks for posting this, Andy. > > I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his reference > to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his observation that 'The eye of > science does not probe ?a thing,? an event isolated from other things or > events. Its real object is to see and understand the way a thing or event > relates to other things or events'. > > We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or less) on > ways of organising experience into shareable categories but our > communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using these > categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of science but > he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use of language and > more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The romantic focus on an > 'individual' can only ever be conducted in the medium of a very > un-individual language and no person's life could possibly be understood > without reference to relationships with other persons which then spread > roots and branches out to a forest of connections, causes and consequences. > > David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of theory if one > were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case and Luria cites > Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the concrete'. As Luria goes > on to conclude 'People come and go, but the creative sources of great > historical events and the important ideas and deeds remain' so, in this > sense, what matters is the contribution individuals make to something > bigger and more enduring than themselves but Luria also writes that > 'Romantics in science want neither to split living reality into its > elementary components nor to represent the wealth of life's concrete events > in abstract models that lose the properties of the phenomena themselves'. > > I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is > particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how all > minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' lower > than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory associations which > words bring with them in a way which, for most of us, may occur only at a > pre-conscious level. This provides a particularly powerful reminder of the > inescapable fact that every person's use of a shared language (whether of > words, gestures, behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the > surface of a pool of connections and associations which can never be shared > with or known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can > only go so far in understanding another person's understanding and much > less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone is a very > different thing from being able to share that knowledge in a rich and > meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of the spectrum, > classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge is entirely pure and > untainted by the personal associations that swirl beneath the limens of > their knowing are just inventing stories! > > I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what lies > beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young children are > able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so powerfully dominated > by abstractions. > > All the best, > > Rod > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu] > On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > Try this, in Word this time. > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: > > ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the > > chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST be > > somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. > > > > After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas seems > > appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended essay's > > on his view of Romantic Science. > > > > It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, were > > not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of their > > enterprise encompassed those fields and more. > > > > Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual case in > > no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their work. > > Nor does Luria argue so. > > > > mike > > ? > > > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > I think the problem with this view of romantic science > > is that it > > completely precludes building a psychology on a > > sociology. In that sense > > (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist > > at all. Vygotsky > > certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the > > individual case"; such > > an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of > > theory. I'm not sure > > Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a > > Shattered Mind" and > > "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. > > Remember the main > > criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human > > Conflicts" was always that > > it was too quantitative. > > > > There are, of course, some areas of psychology that > > are well studied as > > case histories. Recently, I've been looking into > > suicidology, and in > > particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered > > the linguistic > > analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have > > been influenced, as > > early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work > > on schizophrinia). > > Now you would think that if ever there was a field > > that would benefit from > > total immersion in the individual case, this is one. > > But Shneidman says > > that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal > > phrases, and as a > > consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively > > (one of his first > > studies was simply to sort a pile of real and > > imitation suicide notes and > > carefully note the criteria he had when he made > > correct judgements). And of > > course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide > > is that the individual > > case can be utterly disregarded, since the great > > variations are > > sociological and the psychological variables all seem > > trivial, transient, > > or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a > > large scale (as we must > > these days). Shneidman says he has never read a > > suicide note he would want > > to have written. > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden > > > wrote: > > > > > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' > > style of Romantic > > > Science was his complete immersion in the individual > > case before him, and > > > development of a science of complete persons. The > > paradigm of this type of > > > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative > > Science" I suppose. The > > > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each > > case, e.g. facial > > > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a > > "covering law" for just this > > > aspect. > > > Andy > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > > > > >> Mike, > > >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that > > naysayers were cited in > > >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering > > if some of that push back > > >> was related to his practice of romantic science, > > which, if I understand > > >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in > > the phenomena of > > >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, > > for example, immersed > > >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His > > writing prefigures the cell > > >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of > > microscopes could not confirm > > >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner > > and Sacks makes me > > >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at > > issue. Different styles > > >> of research bring different construals. This may be > > the bane of > > >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really > > make Sacks less of a > > >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? > > >> Henry > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole > > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our > > connections with Luria and > > >>> the fact that we > > >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a > > romantic science. He was a > > >>> shy > > >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, > > and the difference > > >>> between > > >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the > > interview with them that > > >>> someone > > >>> pirated on > > >>> to youtube. > > >>> > > >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, > > engaging intellectually all > > >>> the while. > > >>> > > >>> mike > > >>> > > >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin > > > > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the > > privilege of spending an > > >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting > > Jerry Bruner and Carol > > >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in for Sylvia who > > couldn't make the dinner - it > > >>>> was > > >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you > > ever hear from Bruner? I > > >>>> wonder if he's still active. > > >>>> > > >>>> Laura > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Sent from my iPad > > >>>> > > >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole > > > wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Dear Colleagues --- > > >>>> > > >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news > > that Oliver Sacks has > > >>>> succumbed to cancer. > > >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. > > >>>> mike > > >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > >>>> > > >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM > > >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; > > Neurologist and Author > > >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks > > >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com > > : Oliver Sacks Dies at > > 82; Neurologist > > >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks > > >>>> < > > >>>> > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668 > ?i_id=0> > > >>>> By > > >>>> GREGORY COWLES > > >>>> > > >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest > > pathways in > > >>>> best-selling > > >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife > > for a Hat,? achieving > > >>>> a > > >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. > > >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: > > http://nyti.ms/1LL040D > > >>>> < > > >>>> > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668 > ?i_id=0> > > >>>> To > > >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times > > articles, subscribe today. > > >>>> See > > >>>> Subscription Options. > > >>>> < > > >>>> > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwCIjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mPAvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668 > ?i_id=0> > > >>>> To > > >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add > > nytdirect@nytimes.com > > to your > > >>>> address book. Advertisement > > >>>> > > >>>> < > > >>>> > > > http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview > > >>>> > > > >>>> Copyright 2015 > > >>>> < > > >>>> > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuPIxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668 > ?i_id=0 > > >>>> > > > >>>> | The New York Times Company > > >>>> < > > >>>> > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcSh&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668 > ?i_id=0 > > >>>> > > > >>>> | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> > > >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a > > natural science with an > > >>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> -- > > >>> > > >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a > > natural science with an > > >>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]< > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for > the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the > intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the > information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. > If you have received this email in error please let the sender know > immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not > necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts > no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails > and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility > for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its > attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied > by an official order form. > > > > > > From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Tue Sep 1 14:41:16 2015 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 22:41:16 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science & Speed of Political Action ? In-Reply-To: <203437239.5267772.1441140761314.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> <203437239.5267772.1441140761314.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Peter, Yes, fairly mechanistic at the level of 'deploying operations forces'. However mechanistic/instrumental dimension seems to be inherent to the notion of a special forces/operations. Andy's response led me to believe that the 'border force' is actually a far more timid organisation than the name suggested. Timidity seems more preferable than a police force with unsavoury aspects of 'basic assumption' / group-think. What did you want to make of Peg's contribution? As I see it, Peg is pointing to a way to get beyond the logorrhoea of "qualitative and quantitative" flotsam towards a genetic understanding. "Romantic science", it seems, is mostly used as a transitional step in that direction. Do we know when Luria originally wrote the paper/section on romantic science? It's not quite clear to me whether he is simplifying for the benefit of the reader or, at the time of writing, was overlooking the simplifications he was making with respect to 'classical science' and 'romantic science'. Best, Huw On 1 September 2015 at 21:52, peter jones wrote: > Just reading recent posts including Peg's mention of : 'A romantic > square':Concrete Abstract > Specific General > ====These 'continua' and many others can (in different ways?) be > incorporated - cognitively at least - into Hodges' model - a JoHari window > (hybrid?): > http://hodges-model.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=johari > > Huw's post 28th August also caught my attention - key words drawing > together in the MECHANSTIC confluence of the POLITICAL-SCIENCES domains > which I highlight below:==========In my limited experience and thinking, > special ops police forces seem to > have two distinct characteristics. The first is the focus on catching > criminals in criminal activities rather than educating people against > them. The second is a preference for militarised operations, rather than > standardised policing. I would guess that (an argument for) the appropriate > time to take such measures is when there are no other resources available > to protect something of obvious felt importance that is also felt to be > clearly at risk, that doesn't seem to be the case in this protest. I > wonder whether such morality could be institutionalised into police > practice, i.e. to legitimately boycott operations that do not meet those > criteria. > > Huw=== > This fits in with the MECHANISTIC dimension of the model which combines > the SCIENCES domain (force(s), operations, measures) and POLITICAL (police, > operations, institution)....It also begs the questions that (may) arise: > when the 'reflex' that is a scientific neural arc is transformed into > militarised operations (police responses) dire consequences may ensue.Where > is the conscious of the group vs that of the individual how can they be > expressed simultaneously (they cannot in this situation)? Is discipline > 'drummed' in or is it 'drummed' out assuring an institutionalised response > (command structure)?what is legitimate?'Measures' may take an interesting > 'turn' with police videocams?What is the status of police unions - and > individual action? What goes un-stated but speaks loudest?: power, > coercion, intimidation, non-verbal communication, speed, presence, numbers, > equipment (hard-ware).....!!! > Regards, Peter Jones > Blogging at "Welcome to the QUAD" > http://hodges-model.blogspot.com/ > Hodges Health Career - Care Domains - Model > h2cm: help 2C more - help 2 listen - help 2 care > http://twitter.com/h2cm > From: Peg Griffin > To: "'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'" ; > ablunden@mira.net > Sent: Tuesday, 1 September 2015, 16:14 > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and Sachs ? with > rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made (based on the > even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham, I > heard). I can think better by working to fill in each of the four cells in > the square about an issue of interest. It helps me think about genetically > primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. > Concrete Abstract > Specific > General > > A romantic square, > Peg > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rod > Parker-Rees > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM > To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > Thanks for posting this, Andy. > > I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his reference > to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his observation that 'The eye of > science does not probe ?a thing,? an event isolated from other things or > events. Its real object is to see and understand the way a thing or event > relates to other things or events'. > > We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or less) on > ways of organising experience into shareable categories but our > communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using these > categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of science but > he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use of language and > more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The romantic focus on an > 'individual' can only ever be conducted in the medium of a very > un-individual language and no person's life could possibly be understood > without reference to relationships with other persons which then spread > roots and branches out to a forest of connections, causes and consequences. > > David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of theory if one > were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case and Luria cites > Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the concrete'. As Luria goes > on to conclude 'People come and go, but the creative sources of great > historical events and the important ideas and deeds remain' so, in this > sense, what matters is the contribution individuals make to something > bigger and more enduring than themselves but Luria also writes that > 'Romantics in science want neither to split living reality into its > elementary components nor to represent the wealth of life's concrete events > in abstract models that lose the properties of the phenomena themselves'. > > I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is > particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how all > minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' lower > than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory associations which > words bring with them in a way which, for most of us, may occur only at a > pre-conscious level. This provides a particularly powerful reminder of the > inescapable fact that every person's use of a shared language (whether of > words, gestures, behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the > surface of a pool of connections and associations which can never be shared > with or known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can > only go so far in understanding another person's understanding and much > less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone is a very > different thing from being able to share that knowledge in a rich and > meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of the spectrum, > classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge is entirely pure and > untainted by the personal associations that swirl beneath the limens of > their knowing are just inventing stories! > > I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what lies > beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young children are > able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so powerfully dominated > by abstractions. > > All the best, > > Rod > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu] > On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > Try this, in Word this time. > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: > > ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the > > chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST be > > somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. > > > > After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas seems > > appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended essay's > > on his view of Romantic Science. > > > > It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, were > > not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of their > > enterprise encompassed those fields and more. > > > > Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual case in > > no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their work. > > Nor does Luria argue so. > > > > mike > > ? > > > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > I think the problem with this view of romantic science > > is that it > > completely precludes building a psychology on a > > sociology. In that sense > > (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist > > at all. Vygotsky > > certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the > > individual case"; such > > an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of > > theory. I'm not sure > > Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a > > Shattered Mind" and > > "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. > > Remember the main > > criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human > > Conflicts" was always that > > it was too quantitative. > > > > There are, of course, some areas of psychology that > > are well studied as > > case histories. Recently, I've been looking into > > suicidology, and in > > particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered > > the linguistic > > analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have > > been influenced, as > > early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work > > on schizophrinia). > > Now you would think that if ever there was a field > > that would benefit from > > total immersion in the individual case, this is one. > > But Shneidman says > > that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal > > phrases, and as a > > consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively > > (one of his first > > studies was simply to sort a pile of real and > > imitation suicide notes and > > carefully note the criteria he had when he made > > correct judgements). And of > > course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide > > is that the individual > > case can be utterly disregarded, since the great > > variations are > > sociological and the psychological variables all seem > > trivial, transient, > > or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a > > large scale (as we must > > these days). Shneidman says he has never read a > > suicide note he would want > > to have written. > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden > > > wrote: > > > > > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' > > style of Romantic > > > Science was his complete immersion in the individual > > case before him, and > > > development of a science of complete persons. The > > paradigm of this type of > > > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative > > Science" I suppose. The > > > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each > > case, e.g. facial > > > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a > > "covering law" for just this > > > aspect. > > > Andy > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > > > > >> Mike, > > >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that > > naysayers were cited in > > >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering > > if some of that push back > > >> was related to his practice of romantic science, > > which, if I understand > > >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in > > the phenomena of > > >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, > > for example, immersed > > >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His > > writing prefigures the cell > > >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of > > microscopes could not confirm > > >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner > > and Sacks makes me > > >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at > > issue. Different styles > > >> of research bring different construals. This may be > > the bane of > > >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really > > make Sacks less of a > > >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? > > >> Henry > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole > > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our > > connections with Luria and > > >>> the fact that we > > >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a > > romantic science. He was a > > >>> shy > > >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, > > and the difference > > >>> between > > >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the > > interview with them that > > >>> someone > > >>> pirated on > > >>> to youtube. > > >>> > > >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, > > engaging intellectually all > > >>> the while. > > >>> > > >>> mike > > >>> > > >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin > > > > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the > > privilege of spending an > > >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting > > Jerry Bruner and Carol > > >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in for Sylvia who > > couldn't make the dinner - it > > >>>> was > > >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you > > ever hear from Bruner? I > > >>>> wonder if he's still active. > > >>>> > > >>>> Laura > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Sent from my iPad > > >>>> > > >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole > > > wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Dear Colleagues --- > > >>>> > > >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news > > that Oliver Sacks has > > >>>> succumbed to cancer. > > >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. > > >>>> mike > > >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > >>>> > > >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM > > >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; > > Neurologist and Author > > >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks > > >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com > > : Oliver Sacks Dies at > > 82; Neurologist > > >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks > > >>>> < > > >>>> > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668 > ?i_id=0> > > >>>> By > > >>>> GREGORY COWLES > > >>>> > > >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest > > pathways in > > >>>> best-selling > > >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife > > for a Hat,? achieving > > >>>> a > > >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. > > >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: > > http://nyti.ms/1LL040D > > >>>> < > > >>>> > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668 > ?i_id=0> > > >>>> To > > >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times > > articles, subscribe today. > > >>>> See > > >>>> Subscription Options. > > >>>> < > > >>>> > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwCIjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mPAvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668 > ?i_id=0> > > >>>> To > > >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add > > nytdirect@nytimes.com > > to your > > >>>> address book. Advertisement > > >>>> > > >>>> < > > >>>> > > > http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview > > >>>> > > > >>>> Copyright 2015 > > >>>> < > > >>>> > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuPIxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668 > ?i_id=0 > > >>>> > > > >>>> | The New York Times Company > > >>>> < > > >>>> > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcSh&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668 > ?i_id=0 > > >>>> > > > >>>> | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> > > >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a > > natural science with an > > >>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> -- > > >>> > > >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a > > natural science with an > > >>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]< > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for > the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the > intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the > information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. > If you have received this email in error please let the sender know > immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not > necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts > no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails > and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility > for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its > attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied > by an official order form. > > > > > > From h2cmng@yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 1 16:27:29 2015 From: h2cmng@yahoo.co.uk (peter jones) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 23:27:29 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science & Speed of Political Action ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2042212270.21717.1441150049222.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Thanks David.? I see the care (knowledge) domains - the 2x2 matrix - as a kind of substrate (template, structure) upon which axes, clines, continua can be superimposed.Our tendency (need) to dichotomise can then be 'placed' around what are the two axes of the model: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? SELF? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?|GROUP-POPULATION ? ? ? and HUMANISTIC ------ MECHANISTIC? Can the model 'claim' from the above to potentially say-represent something ontological and epistemological? Another view of the 2x2 matrix is as a series of conceptual spaces after?G?rdenfors.?I'm still trying to pull all this together. I see (well I'm learning I think) the role-importance of?Vygotsky?in recent reading for tech enhanced learning studies, so your points are very helpful. Regarding axis, the often mentioned SUBJECTIVE - OBJECTIVE can substitute for HUM - MECH above. The model is an idealisation but I believe it can 'capture' simplistically -? semantics - semiotics - syntax? I know we have to take a position, stance, standpoint... but for me the/a model is not fixed, it is dynamic (figure-ground gestalt).Perhaps this dynamic is a romantic notion, as like a film (frames) it gives the illusion of a whole? You've left with much to reflect on still and Huw's reply as I retire for the night...?Regards, Peter Jones From: David Kellogg To: peter jones ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Tuesday, 1 September 2015, 22:38 Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science & Speed of Political Action ? Suppose we want to distinguish between the set of all utterances ever spoken or written in a language (we could use English, but it might be a little easier to imagine if we use a dead language, preferably one that can no longer be reconstructed, like Neanderthal) and a specific utterance spoken at a particular instance by a single individual person. That's what Halliday calls the "cline of instantiation", and I think we can say it corresponds to Peg's axis of general to specific. It's a cline, and not a two by two matrix, because almost everything we are interested in studying is somewhere in between: texts, types of texts, genres, etc.? On the other hand, at each point on the continuum we also want to distinguish between semantics (what Vygotsky calls "thinking"), lexicgrammar (not just words but "wordings", what Vygotsky calls "speech"), and phonology-phonetics (what Vygotsky calls "sound complexes"). That's what Halliday calls the "cline of realization", and I think we can say it corresponds to Peg's axis of abstract to concrete. Once again, it's a cline and not a two by two matrix, and one again the bits worth studying are somewhere in between. Notice that nowhere is the axis of "ideal/material" really relevant. Along the cline of instantiation, everything is in the final analysis material, although the further we get to the general end of the continuum the more we are going to have to rely on our own imaginations. Along the cline of realization, the distinction is not so much "ideal/material" as "potential/actual". That's how Vygotsky distinguishes between "signification" and "sense"--they are both areas of the semantics, but one of them is more actual and the other more potential, which is why the area of signification is "larger", more shareable, and thus more stable. David Kellogg ? On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:52 AM, peter jones wrote: Just reading recent posts including Peg's mention of :?'A romantic square':Concrete??? Abstract Specific??? ????General???? ====These 'continua' and many others can (in different ways?) be incorporated - cognitively at least - into Hodges' model - a JoHari window (hybrid?): http://hodges-model.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=johari Huw's post 28th August also caught my attention - key words drawing together in the MECHANSTIC confluence of the POLITICAL-SCIENCES domains which I highlight below:==========In my limited experience and thinking, special ops police forces seem to have two distinct characteristics.? The first is the focus on catching criminals in criminal activities rather than educating people against them.? The second is a preference for militarised operations, rather than standardised policing. I would guess that (an argument for) the appropriate time to take such measures is when there are no other resources available to protect something of obvious felt importance that is also felt to be clearly at risk, that doesn't seem to be the case in this protest.? I wonder whether such morality could be institutionalised into police practice, i.e. to legitimately boycott operations that do not meet those criteria. Huw=== This fits in with the MECHANISTIC dimension of the model which combines the SCIENCES domain (force(s), operations, measures) and POLITICAL (police, operations, institution)....It also begs the questions that (may) arise: when the 'reflex' that is a scientific neural arc is transformed into militarised operations (police responses) dire consequences may ensue.Where is the conscious of the group vs that of the individual how can they be expressed simultaneously (they cannot in this situation)??Is discipline 'drummed' in or is it 'drummed' out assuring an institutionalised response (command structure)?what is legitimate?'Measures' may take an interesting 'turn' with police videocams?What is the status of police unions - and individual action??What goes un-stated but speaks loudest?: power, coercion, intimidation, non-verbal communication, speed, presence, numbers, equipment (hard-ware).....!!! Regards,?Peter Jones Blogging at "Welcome to the QUAD" http://hodges-model.blogspot.com/ Hodges Health Career - Care Domains - Model h2cm: help 2C more - help 2 listen - help 2 care http://twitter.com/h2cm ? ? ? From: Peg Griffin ?To: "'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'" ; ablunden@mira.net ?Sent: Tuesday, 1 September 2015, 16:14 ?Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and Sachs ? with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made (based on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill in each of the four cells in the square about an issue of interest.? It helps me think about genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. ??? Concrete??? Abstract Specific??? ??? General??? ??? A romantic square, Peg -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rod Parker-Rees Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science Thanks for posting this, Andy. I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his observation that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event isolated from other things or events. Its real object is to see and understand the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'. We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or less) on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but our communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using these categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of science but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use of language and more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The romantic focus on an 'individual' can only ever be conducted in the medium of a very un-individual language and no person's life could possibly be understood without reference to relationships with other persons which then spread roots and branches out to a forest of connections, causes and consequences. David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of theory if one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case and Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but the creative sources of great historical events and the important ideas and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the contribution individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than themselves but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want neither to split living reality into its elementary components nor to represent the wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that lose the properties of the phenomena themselves'. I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how all minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory associations which words bring with them in a way which, for most of us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that every person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface of a pool of connections and associations which can never be shared with or known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can only go so far in understanding another person's understanding and much less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone is a very different thing from being able to share that knowledge in a? rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of the spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge is entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that swirl beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what lies beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young children are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so powerfully dominated by abstractions. All the best, Rod -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science Try this, in Word this time. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: > ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the > chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST be > somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. > > After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas seems > appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended essay's > on his view of Romantic Science. > > It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, were > not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of their > enterprise encompassed those fields and more. > > Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual case in > no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their work. > Nor does Luria argue so. > > mike > ? > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > >? ? I think the problem with this view of romantic science >? ? is that it >? ? completely precludes building a psychology on a >? ? sociology. In that sense >? ? (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist >? ? at all. Vygotsky >? ? certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the >? ? individual case"; such >? ? an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of >? ? theory. I'm not sure >? ? Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a >? ? Shattered Mind" and >? ? "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. >? ? Remember the main >? ? criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human >? ? Conflicts" was always that >? ? it was too quantitative. > >? ? There are, of course, some areas of psychology that >? ? are well studied as >? ? case histories. Recently, I've been looking into >? ? suicidology, and in >? ? particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered >? ? the linguistic >? ? analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have >? ? been influenced, as >? ? early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work >? ? on schizophrinia). >? ? Now you would think that if ever there was a field >? ? that would benefit from >? ? total immersion in the individual case, this is one. >? ? But Shneidman says >? ? that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal >? ? phrases, and as a >? ? consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively >? ? (one of his first >? ? studies was simply to sort a pile of real and >? ? imitation suicide notes and >? ? carefully note the criteria he had when he made >? ? correct judgements). And of >? ? course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide >? ? is that the individual >? ? case can be utterly disregarded, since the great >? ? variations are >? ? sociological and the psychological variables all seem >? ? trivial, transient, >? ? or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a >? ? large scale (as we must >? ? these days). Shneidman says he has never read a >? ? suicide note he would want >? ? to have written. > >? ? David Kellogg > > > >? ? On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden >? ? > wrote: > >? ? > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' >? ? style of Romantic >? ? > Science was his complete immersion in the individual >? ? case before him, and >? ? > development of a science of complete persons. The >? ? paradigm of this type of >? ? > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative >? ? Science" I suppose. The >? ? > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each >? ? case, e.g. facial >? ? > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a >? ? "covering law" for just this >? ? > aspect. >? ? > Andy >? ? > >? ? ------------------------------------------------------------ >? ? > *Andy Blunden* >? ? > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >? ? >? ? > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >? ? > >? ? >> Mike, >? ? >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that >? ? naysayers were cited in >? ? >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering >? ? if some of that push back >? ? >> was related to his practice of romantic science, >? ? which, if I understand >? ? >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in >? ? the phenomena of >? ? >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, >? ? for example, immersed >? ? >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His >? ? writing prefigures the cell >? ? >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of >? ? microscopes could not confirm >? ? >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner >? ? and Sacks makes me >? ? >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at >? ? issue. Different styles >? ? >> of research bring different construals. This may be >? ? the bane of >? ? >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really >? ? make Sacks less of a >? ? >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? >? ? >> Henry >? ? >> >? ? >> >? ? >> >? ? >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole >? ? > wrote: >? ? >>> >? ? >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our >? ? connections with Luria and >? ? >>> the fact that we >? ? >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a >? ? romantic science. He was a >? ? >>> shy >? ? >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, >? ? and the difference >? ? >>> between >? ? >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the >? ? interview with them that >? ? >>> someone >? ? >>> pirated on >? ? >>> to youtube. >? ? >>> >? ? >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, >? ? engaging intellectually all >? ? >>> the while. >? ? >>> >? ? >>> mike >? ? >>> >? ? >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin >? ? > >? ? >>> wrote: >? ? >>> >? ? >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the >? ? privilege of spending an >? ? >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting >? ? Jerry Bruner and Carol >? ? >>>> Feldman in NY.? I stood in for Sylvia who >? ? couldn't make the dinner - it >? ? >>>> was >? ? >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you >? ? ever hear from Bruner? I >? ? >>>> wonder if he's still active. >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> Laura >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> Sent from my iPad >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole >? ? > wrote: >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> Dear Colleagues --- >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news >? ? that Oliver Sacks has >? ? >>>> succumbed to cancer. >? ? >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. >? ? >>>> mike >? ? >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM >? ? >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; >? ? Neurologist and Author >? ? >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks >? ? >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>>? Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com >? ? : Oliver Sacks Dies at >? ? 82; Neurologist >? ? >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks >? ? >>>> < >? ? >>>> >? ? http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668?i_id=0> >? ? >>>> By >? ? >>>> GREGORY COWLES >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest >? ? pathways in >? ? >>>> best-selling >? ? >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife >? ? for a Hat,? achieving >? ? >>>> a >? ? >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. >? ? >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: >? ? http://nyti.ms/1LL040D >? ? >>>> < >? ? >>>> >? ? http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668?i_id=0> >? ? >>>> To >? ? >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times >? ? articles, subscribe today. >? ? >>>> See >? ? >>>> Subscription Options. >? ? >>>> < >? ? >>>> >? ? http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwCIjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mPAvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668?i_id=0> >? ? >>>> To >? ? >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add >? ? nytdirect@nytimes.com >? ? to your >? ? >>>> address book. Advertisement >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> < >? ? >>>> >? ? http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview >? ? >>>> > >? ? >>>> Copyright 2015 >? ? >>>> < >? ? >>>> >? ? http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuPIxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668?i_id=0 >? ? >>>> > >? ? >>>> | The New York Times Company >? ? >>>> < >? ? >>>> >? ? http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcSh&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668?i_id=0 >? ? >>>> > >? ? >>>> | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> -- >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a >? ? natural science with an >? ? >>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> >? ? >>>> >? ? >>> -- >? ? >>> >? ? >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a >? ? natural science with an >? ? >>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >? ? >>> >? ? >> >? ? >> >? ? >> >? ? > > > > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > ________________________________ [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form. From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Wed Sep 2 07:26:08 2015 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 10:26:08 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Call for Papers - JNE Summer 2016 Special Issue Message-ID: Fyi Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note? II
-------- Original message --------
From: cjjoseph@howard.edu
Date:09/02/2015 10:19 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: pmocombe@mocombeian.com
Subject: Call for Papers - JNE Summer 2016 Special Issue
02-Sep-2015 Greetings: Please see attached the Call for Papers for the JNE summer 2016 special issue. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: * Call-for-Papers--Summer-2016-Special-Issue.docx Type: application/octet-stream Size: 18636 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150902/8f9ecac1/attachment.obj From Peg.Griffin@att.net Wed Sep 2 07:52:02 2015 From: Peg.Griffin@att.net (Peg Griffin) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 10:52:02 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <001701d0e4e7$ad752be0$085f83a0$@att.net> References: <55E37E99.000004FA@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <12553216-10FA-4C70-8D8F-097266281640@gmail.com> <55E4EF7C.7090500@mira.net> <55E526CC.6080400@mira.net> <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC311027525EA@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> <55E5C259.9060101@mira.net> <000f01d0e4de$fb40b960$f1c22c20$@att.net> <001701d0e4e7$ad752be0$085f83a0$@att.net> Message-ID: <002501d0e58e$ee919760$cbb4c620$@att.net> What I did not make clear is that the JoHari window is not really the same as a matrix. It is a different kind of tool than I think David and Peter are thinking about. Here's the trick: You change the pane sizes to emphasize the one of the four panes you are currently acting on -- but all four panes are always there. So you can make the "concrete specific" pane HUGE by moving the top bottom inner divider far to the right and moving the left right inner divider far to the bottom. Or you can move only one of the dividers. And you can move the dividers without such extremes. Even if a diagnosis/treatment only does the first move I described, there's little abstract involved. I don't mind that so much if the actors are involved in an emergency triage activity, but without the abstract you are going on observables very influenced by perceptual and cultural access of the actors and you might not even have the most useful template from the general to guide/evaluate your trials and errors. So you'd better shift the panes pretty soon before things get way off base. You can also fool around with the arrangement of the terms that name the panes: Do you get more out of concrete vs. specific or more out of specific vs. concrete (in David's terms the anchors for the cline). Same for abstract vs. concrete or concrete vs. abstract. PG -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Peg Griffin Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:55 PM To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science As far as I understand those terms (nomothetic and idiographic), the combined motor method does unite them and so arrives at dual stimulation, given the non-accidental mosaic. But I don't know that my understanding goes far enough or too far! Peg -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:08 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science Is that simultaneously uniting the nomothetic and idiographic, Peg? That is the way Luria talked about it. mike On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > Just in a short-hand: > > Concrete Specific: Zasetsky (The man with the shattered world) > > Concrete General: People with traumatic brain injury during WWII > > Abstract General: Brain is a mosaic of specific domains with actions > that interact in dual stimulations (not pure will) > > Abstract Specific: A man acts to recall using images; it fails on a > certain target. The man starts appears to abandon the recall by > acting an intimately related system ? e.g., reciting the alphabet. > But the recital is ?interrupted? when it bumps into the original > recall target and the recall is successful. > > > > For diagnosis and/or treatment, we must rise to the concrete specific. > > > > Sorry I don?t have time to develop this further but I am sure many on > this list do, and I know that Luria and Sacks did so in wondrous and > glorious instances. > > Peg > > > > > > From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net] > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:21 AM > To: Peg Griffin; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > Could you give an example, Peg? > andy > > _____ > > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > > What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and Sachs ? > with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made (based > on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and Harrington > Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill in each of the four cells in > the square about an issue of interest. It helps me think about > genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. > Concrete Abstract > Specific > General > > A romantic square, > Peg > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rod > Parker-Rees > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM > To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > Thanks for posting this, Andy. > > I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his > reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his observation > that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event isolated > from other things or events. Its real object is to see and understand > the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'. > > We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or less) > on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but our > communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using these > categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of science > but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use of > language and more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The > romantic focus on an 'individual' can only ever be conducted in the > medium of a very un-individual language and no person's life could > possibly be understood without reference to relationships with other > persons which then spread roots and branches out to a forest of connections, causes and consequences. > > David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of theory if > one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case and > Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the > concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but the > creative sources of great historical events and the important ideas > and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the contribution > individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than themselves > but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want neither to split > living reality into its elementary components nor to represent the > wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that lose the properties of the phenomena themselves'. > > I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is > particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how all > minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' > lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory > associations which words bring with them in a way which, for most of > us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a > particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that every > person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, > behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface of a > pool of connections and associations which can never be shared with or > known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can only > go so far in understanding another person's understanding and much > less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone is a > very different thing from being able to share that knowledge in a > rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of the > spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge is > entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that swirl beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! > > I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what lies > beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young children > are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so powerfully > dominated by abstractions. > > All the best, > > Rod > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > ] > On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > Try this, in Word this time. > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: > > ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the > chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST be > somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. > > After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas seems > appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended essay's > on his view of Romantic Science. > > It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, were > not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of their > enterprise encompassed those fields and more. > > Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual case in > no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their work. > Nor does Luria argue so. > > mike > ? > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > I think the problem with this view of romantic science > is that it > completely precludes building a psychology on a > sociology. In that sense > (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist > at all. Vygotsky > certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the > individual case"; such > an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of > theory. I'm not sure > Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a > Shattered Mind" and > "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. > Remember the main > criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human > Conflicts" was always that > it was too quantitative. > > There are, of course, some areas of psychology that > are well studied as > case histories. Recently, I've been looking into > suicidology, and in > particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered > the linguistic > analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have > been influenced, as > early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work > on schizophrinia). > Now you would think that if ever there was a field > that would benefit from > total immersion in the individual case, this is one. > But Shneidman says > that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal > phrases, and as a > consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively > (one of his first > studies was simply to sort a pile of real and > imitation suicide notes and > carefully note the criteria he had when he made > correct judgements). And of > course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide > is that the individual > case can be utterly disregarded, since the great > variations are > sociological and the psychological variables all seem > trivial, transient, > or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a > large scale (as we must > these days). Shneidman says he has never read a > suicide note he would want > to have written. > > David Kellogg > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden > ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: > > > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' > style of Romantic > > Science was his complete immersion in the individual > case before him, and > > development of a science of complete persons. The > paradigm of this type of > > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative > Science" I suppose. The > > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each > case, e.g. facial > > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a > "covering law" for just this > > aspect. > > Andy > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > < > http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/> > > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > > >> Mike, > >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that > naysayers were cited in > >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering > if some of that push back > >> was related to his practice of romantic science, > which, if I understand > >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in > the phenomena of > >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, > for example, immersed > >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His > writing prefigures the cell > >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of > microscopes could not confirm > >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner > and Sacks makes me > >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at > issue. Different styles > >> of research bring different construals. This may be > the bane of > >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really > make Sacks less of a > >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? > >> Henry > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole > > > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our > connections with Luria and > >>> the fact that we > >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a > romantic science. He was a > >>> shy > >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, > and the difference > >>> between > >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the > interview with them that > >>> someone > >>> pirated on > >>> to youtube. > >>> > >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, > engaging intellectually all > >>> the while. > >>> > >>> mike > >>> > >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin > martinl@azscience.org>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the > privilege of spending an > >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting > Jerry Bruner and Carol > >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in for Sylvia who > couldn't make the dinner - it > >>>> was > >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you > ever hear from Bruner? I > >>>> wonder if he's still active. > >>>> > >>>> Laura > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Sent from my iPad > >>>> > >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole > > > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Dear Colleagues --- > >>>> > >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news > that Oliver Sacks has > >>>> succumbed to cancer. > >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. > >>>> mike > >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>>> > >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM > >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; > Neurologist and Author > >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks > >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com lchcmike@gmail.com> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com > : > Oliver Sacks Dies at > 82; Neurologist > >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks > >>>> < > >>>> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > a < > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 > 972441657668®i_id=0> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >>>> By > >>>> GREGORY COWLES > >>>> > >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest > pathways in > >>>> best-selling > >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife > for a Hat,? achieving > >>>> a > >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. > >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: > http://nyti.ms/1LL040D > >>>> < > >>>> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > a < > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 > 972441657668®i_id=0> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >>>> To > >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times > articles, subscribe today. > >>>> See > >>>> Subscription Options. > >>>> < > >>>> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC > IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP > AvEGfk= > < > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC > IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP > AvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_i > d=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >>>> To > >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add > nytdirect@nytimes.com nytdirect@nytimes.com> > to your > >>>> address book. Advertisement > >>>> > >>>> < > >>>> > http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto < > http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secu > re.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn > 1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=Mis > tressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistr > essamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview> > &opzn&page= > secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview > >>>> > > >>>> Copyright 2015 > >>>> < > >>>> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP > IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ== > < > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP > IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31 > 502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668&r > egi_id=0> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 > >>>> > > >>>> | The New York Times Company > >>>> < > >>>> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcS > h < > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcS > h&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 > 972441657668®i_id=0> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 > >>>> > > >>>> | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a > natural science with an > >>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a > natural science with an > >>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > ________________________________ > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] < > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> < > http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely > for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not > the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the > information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. > If you have received this email in error please let the sender know > immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not > necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University > accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to > scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept > responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this > email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services > unless accompanied by an official order form. > > > > > > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From ablunden@mira.net Wed Sep 2 08:08:37 2015 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 01:08:37 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <002501d0e58e$ee919760$cbb4c620$@att.net> References: <55E37E99.000004FA@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <12553216-10FA-4C70-8D8F-097266281640@gmail.com> <55E4EF7C.7090500@mira.net> <55E526CC.6080400@mira.net> <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC311027525EA@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> <55E5C259.9060101@mira.net> <000f01d0e4de$fb40b960$f1c22c20$@att.net> <001701d0e4e7$ad752be0$085f83a0$@att.net> <002501d0e58e$ee919760$cbb4c620$@att.net> Message-ID: <55E710F5.2020903@mira.net> So this is a diagnostic tool, Peg? Could you spell this out a little more for someone who still doesn't grasp what you are talking about? :) andy intrigued. ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 3/09/2015 12:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > What I did not make clear is that the JoHari window is not really the same as a matrix. It is a different kind of tool than I think David and Peter are thinking about. > Here's the trick: You change the pane sizes to emphasize the one of the four panes you are currently acting on -- but all four panes are always there. > So you can make the "concrete specific" pane HUGE by moving the top bottom inner divider far to the right and moving the left right inner divider far to the bottom. Or you can move only one of the dividers. And you can move the dividers without such extremes. > > Even if a diagnosis/treatment only does the first move I described, there's little abstract involved. I don't mind that so much if the actors are involved in an emergency triage activity, but without the abstract you are going on observables very influenced by perceptual and cultural access of the actors and you might not even have the most useful template from the general to guide/evaluate your trials and errors. So you'd better shift the panes pretty soon before things get way off base. > > You can also fool around with the arrangement of the terms that name the panes: Do you get more out of concrete vs. specific or more out of specific vs. concrete (in David's terms the anchors for the cline). Same for abstract vs. concrete or concrete vs. abstract. > PG > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Peg Griffin > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:55 PM > To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > As far as I understand those terms (nomothetic and idiographic), the combined motor method does unite them and so arrives at dual stimulation, given the non-accidental mosaic. > But I don't know that my understanding goes far enough or too far! > Peg > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:08 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > Is that simultaneously uniting the nomothetic and idiographic, Peg? That is the way Luria talked about it. > mike > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > >> Just in a short-hand: >> >> Concrete Specific: Zasetsky (The man with the shattered world) >> >> Concrete General: People with traumatic brain injury during WWII >> >> Abstract General: Brain is a mosaic of specific domains with actions >> that interact in dual stimulations (not pure will) >> >> Abstract Specific: A man acts to recall using images; it fails on a >> certain target. The man starts appears to abandon the recall by >> acting an intimately related system ? e.g., reciting the alphabet. >> But the recital is ?interrupted? when it bumps into the original >> recall target and the recall is successful. >> >> >> >> For diagnosis and/or treatment, we must rise to the concrete specific. >> >> >> >> Sorry I don?t have time to develop this further but I am sure many on >> this list do, and I know that Luria and Sacks did so in wondrous and >> glorious instances. >> >> Peg >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:21 AM >> To: Peg Griffin; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >> >> >> >> Could you give an example, Peg? >> andy >> >> _____ >> >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> >> On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: >> >> What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and Sachs ? >> with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made (based >> on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and Harrington >> Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill in each of the four cells in >> the square about an issue of interest. It helps me think about >> genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. >> Concrete Abstract >> Specific >> General >> >> A romantic square, >> Peg >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rod >> Parker-Rees >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM >> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >> >> Thanks for posting this, Andy. >> >> I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his >> reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his observation >> that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event isolated >> from other things or events. Its real object is to see and understand >> the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'. >> >> We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or less) >> on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but our >> communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using these >> categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of science >> but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use of >> language and more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The >> romantic focus on an 'individual' can only ever be conducted in the >> medium of a very un-individual language and no person's life could >> possibly be understood without reference to relationships with other >> persons which then spread roots and branches out to a forest of connections, causes and consequences. >> >> David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of theory if >> one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case and >> Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the >> concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but the >> creative sources of great historical events and the important ideas >> and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the contribution >> individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than themselves >> but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want neither to split >> living reality into its elementary components nor to represent the >> wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that lose the properties of the phenomena themselves'. >> >> I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is >> particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how all >> minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' >> lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory >> associations which words bring with them in a way which, for most of >> us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a >> particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that every >> person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, >> behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface of a >> pool of connections and associations which can never be shared with or >> known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can only >> go so far in understanding another person's understanding and much >> less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone is a >> very different thing from being able to share that knowledge in a >> rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of the >> spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge is >> entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that swirl beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! >> >> I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what lies >> beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young children >> are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so powerfully >> dominated by abstractions. >> >> All the best, >> >> Rod >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu >> ] >> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >> Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >> >> Try this, in Word this time. >> Andy >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: >> >> ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the >> chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST be >> somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. >> >> After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas seems >> appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended essay's >> on his view of Romantic Science. >> >> It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, were >> not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of their >> enterprise encompassed those fields and more. >> >> Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual case in >> no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their work. >> Nor does Luria argue so. >> >> mike >> ? >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg > > wrote: >> >> I think the problem with this view of romantic science >> is that it >> completely precludes building a psychology on a >> sociology. In that sense >> (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist >> at all. Vygotsky >> certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the >> individual case"; such >> an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of >> theory. I'm not sure >> Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a >> Shattered Mind" and >> "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. >> Remember the main >> criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human >> Conflicts" was always that >> it was too quantitative. >> >> There are, of course, some areas of psychology that >> are well studied as >> case histories. Recently, I've been looking into >> suicidology, and in >> particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered >> the linguistic >> analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have >> been influenced, as >> early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work >> on schizophrinia). >> Now you would think that if ever there was a field >> that would benefit from >> total immersion in the individual case, this is one. >> But Shneidman says >> that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal >> phrases, and as a >> consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively >> (one of his first >> studies was simply to sort a pile of real and >> imitation suicide notes and >> carefully note the criteria he had when he made >> correct judgements). And of >> course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide >> is that the individual >> case can be utterly disregarded, since the great >> variations are >> sociological and the psychological variables all seem >> trivial, transient, >> or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a >> large scale (as we must >> these days). Shneidman says he has never read a >> suicide note he would want >> to have written. >> >> David Kellogg >> >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden >> > ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: >> >> > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' >> style of Romantic >> > Science was his complete immersion in the individual >> case before him, and >> > development of a science of complete persons. The >> paradigm of this type of >> > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative >> Science" I suppose. The >> > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each >> case, e.g. facial >> > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a >> "covering law" for just this >> > aspect. >> > Andy >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> > *Andy Blunden* >> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> < >> http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/> >> > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >> > >> >> Mike, >> >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that >> naysayers were cited in >> >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering >> if some of that push back >> >> was related to his practice of romantic science, >> which, if I understand >> >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in >> the phenomena of >> >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, >> for example, immersed >> >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His >> writing prefigures the cell >> >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of >> microscopes could not confirm >> >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner >> and Sacks makes me >> >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at >> issue. Different styles >> >> of research bring different construals. This may be >> the bane of >> >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really >> make Sacks less of a >> >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? >> >> Henry >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole >> > >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our >> connections with Luria and >> >>> the fact that we >> >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a >> romantic science. He was a >> >>> shy >> >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, >> and the difference >> >>> between >> >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the >> interview with them that >> >>> someone >> >>> pirated on >> >>> to youtube. >> >>> >> >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, >> engaging intellectually all >> >>> the while. >> >>> >> >>> mike >> >>> >> >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin >> > martinl@azscience.org>> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the >> privilege of spending an >> >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting >> Jerry Bruner and Carol >> >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in for Sylvia who >> couldn't make the dinner - it >> >>>> was >> >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you >> ever hear from Bruner? I >> >>>> wonder if he's still active. >> >>>> >> >>>> Laura >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Sent from my iPad >> >>>> >> >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole >> > >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Dear Colleagues --- >> >>>> >> >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news >> that Oliver Sacks has >> >>>> succumbed to cancer. >> >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. >> >>>> mike >> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >>>> >> >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM >> >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; >> Neurologist and Author >> >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks >> >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com > lchcmike@gmail.com> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com >> : >> Oliver Sacks Dies at >> 82; Neurologist >> >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks >> >>>> < >> >>>> >> >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 >> a < >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 >> a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 >> 972441657668®i_id=0> >> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >> >>>> By >> >>>> GREGORY COWLES >> >>>> >> >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest >> pathways in >> >>>> best-selling >> >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife >> for a Hat,? achieving >> >>>> a >> >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. >> >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: >> http://nyti.ms/1LL040D >> >>>> < >> >>>> >> >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 >> a < >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 >> a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 >> 972441657668®i_id=0> >> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >> >>>> To >> >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times >> articles, subscribe today. >> >>>> See >> >>>> Subscription Options. >> >>>> < >> >>>> >> >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC >> IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP >> AvEGfk= >> < >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC >> IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP >> AvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_i >> d=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >> >>>> To >> >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add >> nytdirect@nytimes.com > nytdirect@nytimes.com> >> to your >> >>>> address book. Advertisement >> >>>> >> >>>> < >> >>>> >> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto < >> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secu >> re.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn >> 1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=Mis >> tressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistr >> essamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview> >> &opzn&page= >> secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview >> >>>> > >> >>>> Copyright 2015 >> >>>> < >> >>>> >> >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP >> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ== >> < >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP >> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31 >> 502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668&r >> egi_id=0> >> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 >> >>>> > >> >>>> | The New York Times Company >> >>>> < >> >>>> >> >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcS >> h < >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcS >> h&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 >> 972441657668®i_id=0> >> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 >> >>>> > >> >>>> | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> >> >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a >> natural science with an >> >>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> -- >> >>> >> >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a >> natural science with an >> >>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an >> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] < >> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> < >> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> >> >> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely >> for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not >> the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the >> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. >> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know >> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not >> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University >> accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to >> scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept >> responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this >> email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services >> unless accompanied by an official order form. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Wed Sep 2 09:09:53 2015 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 09:09:53 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <55E710F5.2020903@mira.net> References: <55E37E99.000004FA@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <12553216-10FA-4C70-8D8F-097266281640@gmail.com> <55E4EF7C.7090500@mira.net> <55E526CC.6080400@mira.net> <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC311027525EA@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> <55E5C259.9060101@mira.net> <000f01d0e4de$fb40b960$f1c22c20$@att.net> <001701d0e4e7$ad752be0$085f83a0$@att.net> <002501d0e58e$ee919760$cbb4c620$@att.net> <55E710F5.2020903@mira.net> Message-ID: <55e71f73.e5de440a.d8ee8.ffffc165@mx.google.com> I hope I am not going off on a tangent. The concept "morphic" and the notion that the four approach's are equally valid but express different aspects of THE RELATION. The notion of difference/relation as a unity and each difference is equally valid but expressing a different "character" within the relation (as a unity) Not abstracted or reduced aspects but "morphic" aspects?. If this is too idio just ignore my question. It is coming from left field. -----Original Message----- From: "Andy Blunden" Sent: ?2015-?09-?02 8:10 AM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science So this is a diagnostic tool, Peg? Could you spell this out a little more for someone who still doesn't grasp what you are talking about? :) andy intrigued. ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 3/09/2015 12:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > What I did not make clear is that the JoHari window is not really the same as a matrix. It is a different kind of tool than I think David and Peter are thinking about. > Here's the trick: You change the pane sizes to emphasize the one of the four panes you are currently acting on -- but all four panes are always there. > So you can make the "concrete specific" pane HUGE by moving the top bottom inner divider far to the right and moving the left right inner divider far to the bottom. Or you can move only one of the dividers. And you can move the dividers without such extremes. > > Even if a diagnosis/treatment only does the first move I described, there's little abstract involved. I don't mind that so much if the actors are involved in an emergency triage activity, but without the abstract you are going on observables very influenced by perceptual and cultural access of the actors and you might not even have the most useful template from the general to guide/evaluate your trials and errors. So you'd better shift the panes pretty soon before things get way off base. > > You can also fool around with the arrangement of the terms that name the panes: Do you get more out of concrete vs. specific or more out of specific vs. concrete (in David's terms the anchors for the cline). Same for abstract vs. concrete or concrete vs. abstract. > PG > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Peg Griffin > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:55 PM > To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > As far as I understand those terms (nomothetic and idiographic), the combined motor method does unite them and so arrives at dual stimulation, given the non-accidental mosaic. > But I don't know that my understanding goes far enough or too far! > Peg > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:08 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > Is that simultaneously uniting the nomothetic and idiographic, Peg? That is the way Luria talked about it. > mike > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > >> Just in a short-hand: >> >> Concrete Specific: Zasetsky (The man with the shattered world) >> >> Concrete General: People with traumatic brain injury during WWII >> >> Abstract General: Brain is a mosaic of specific domains with actions >> that interact in dual stimulations (not pure will) >> >> Abstract Specific: A man acts to recall using images; it fails on a >> certain target. The man starts appears to abandon the recall by >> acting an intimately related system ? e.g., reciting the alphabet. >> But the recital is ?interrupted? when it bumps into the original >> recall target and the recall is successful. >> >> >> >> For diagnosis and/or treatment, we must rise to the concrete specific. >> >> >> >> Sorry I don?t have time to develop this further but I am sure many on >> this list do, and I know that Luria and Sacks did so in wondrous and >> glorious instances. >> >> Peg >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:21 AM >> To: Peg Griffin; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >> >> >> >> Could you give an example, Peg? >> andy >> >> _____ >> >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> >> On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: >> >> What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and Sachs ? >> with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made (based >> on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and Harrington >> Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill in each of the four cells in >> the square about an issue of interest. It helps me think about >> genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. >> Concrete Abstract >> Specific >> General >> >> A romantic square, >> Peg >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rod >> Parker-Rees >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM >> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >> >> Thanks for posting this, Andy. >> >> I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his >> reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his observation >> that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event isolated >> from other things or events. Its real object is to see and understand >> the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'. >> >> We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or less) >> on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but our >> communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using these >> categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of science >> but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use of >> language and more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The >> romantic focus on an 'individual' can only ever be conducted in the >> medium of a very un-individual language and no person's life could >> possibly be understood without reference to relationships with other >> persons which then spread roots and branches out to a forest of connections, causes and consequences. >> >> David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of theory if >> one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case and >> Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the >> concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but the >> creative sources of great historical events and the important ideas >> and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the contribution >> individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than themselves >> but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want neither to split >> living reality into its elementary components nor to represent the >> wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that lose the properties of the phenomena themselves'. >> >> I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is >> particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how all >> minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' >> lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory >> associations which words bring with them in a way which, for most of >> us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a >> particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that every >> person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, >> behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface of a >> pool of connections and associations which can never be shared with or >> known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can only >> go so far in understanding another person's understanding and much >> less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone is a >> very different thing from being able to share that knowledge in a >> rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of the >> spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge is >> entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that swirl beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! >> >> I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what lies >> beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young children >> are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so powerfully >> dominated by abstractions. >> >> All the best, >> >> Rod >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu >> ] >> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >> Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >> >> Try this, in Word this time. >> Andy >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: >> >> ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the >> chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST be >> somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. >> >> After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas seems >> appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended essay's >> on his view of Romantic Science. >> >> It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, were >> not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of their >> enterprise encompassed those fields and more. >> >> Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual case in >> no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their work. >> Nor does Luria argue so. >> >> mike >> ? >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg > > wrote: >> >> I think the problem with this view of romantic science >> is that it >> completely precludes building a psychology on a >> sociology. In that sense >> (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist >> at all. Vygotsky >> certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the >> individual case"; such >> an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of >> theory. I'm not sure >> Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a >> Shattered Mind" and >> "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. >> Remember the main >> criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human >> Conflicts" was always that >> it was too quantitative. >> >> There are, of course, some areas of psychology that >> are well studied as >> case histories. Recently, I've been looking into >> suicidology, and in >> particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered >> the linguistic >> analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have >> been influenced, as >> early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work >> on schizophrinia). >> Now you would think that if ever there was a field >> that would benefit from >> total immersion in the individual case, this is one. >> But Shneidman says >> that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal >> phrases, and as a >> consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively >> (one of his first >> studies was simply to sort a pile of real and >> imitation suicide notes and >> carefully note the criteria he had when he made >> correct judgements). And of >> course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide >> is that the individual >> case can be utterly disregarded, since the great >> variations are >> sociological and the psychological variables all seem >> trivial, transient, >> or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a >> large scale (as we must >> these days). Shneidman says he has never read a >> suicide note he would want >> to have written. >> >> David Kellogg >> >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden >> > ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: >> >> > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' >> style of Romantic >> > Science was his complete immersion in the individual >> case before him, and >> > development of a science of complete persons. The >> paradigm of this type of >> > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative >> Science" I suppose. The >> > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each >> case, e.g. facial >> > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a >> "covering law" for just this >> > aspect. >> > Andy >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> > *Andy Blunden* >> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> < >> http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/> >> > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >> > >> >> Mike, >> >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that >> naysayers were cited in >> >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering >> if some of that push back >> >> was related to his practice of romantic science, >> which, if I understand >> >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in >> the phenomena of >> >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, >> for example, immersed >> >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His >> writing prefigures the cell >> >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of >> microscopes could not confirm >> >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner >> and Sacks makes me >> >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at >> issue. Different styles >> >> of research bring different construals. This may be >> the bane of >> >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really >> make Sacks less of a >> >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? >> >> Henry >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole >> > >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our >> connections with Luria and >> >>> the fact that we >> >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a >> romantic science. He was a >> >>> shy >> >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, >> and the difference >> >>> between >> >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the >> interview with them that >> >>> someone >> >>> pirated on >> >>> to youtube. >> >>> >> >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, >> engaging intellectually all >> >>> the while. >> >>> >> >>> mike >> >>> >> >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin >> > martinl@azscience.org>> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the >> privilege of spending an >> >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting >> Jerry Bruner and Carol >> >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in for Sylvia who >> couldn't make the dinner - it >> >>>> was >> >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you >> ever hear from Bruner? I >> >>>> wonder if he's still active. >> >>>> >> >>>> Laura >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Sent from my iPad >> >>>> >> >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole >> > >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Dear Colleagues --- >> >>>> >> >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news >> that Oliver Sacks has >> >>>> succumbed to cancer. >> >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. >> >>>> mike >> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >>>> >> >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM >> >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; >> Neurologist and Author >> >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks >> >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com > lchcmike@gmail.com> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com >> : >> Oliver Sacks Dies at >> 82; Neurologist >> >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks >> >>>> < >> >>>> >> >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 >> a < >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 >> a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 >> 972441657668®i_id=0> >> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >> >>>> By >> >>>> GREGORY COWLES >> >>>> >> >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest >> pathways in >> >>>> best-selling >> >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife >> for a Hat,? achieving >> >>>> a >> >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. >> >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: >> http://nyti.ms/1LL040D >> >>>> < >> >>>> >> >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 >> a < >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 >> a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 >> 972441657668®i_id=0> >> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >> >>>> To >> >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times >> articles, subscribe today. >> >>>> See >> >>>> Subscription Options. >> >>>> < >> >>>> >> >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC >> IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP >> AvEGfk= >> < >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC >> IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP >> AvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_i >> d=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >> >>>> To >> >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add >> nytdirect@nytimes.com > nytdirect@nytimes.com> >> to your >> >>>> address book. Advertisement >> >>>> >> >>>> < >> >>>> >> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto < >> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secu >> re.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn >> 1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=Mis >> tressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistr >> essamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview> >> &opzn&page= >> secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview >> >>>> > >> >>>> Copyright 2015 >> >>>> < >> >>>> >> >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP >> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ== >> < >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP >> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31 >> 502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668&r >> egi_id=0> >> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcd [The entire original message is not included.] From rsanto@indiana.edu Wed Sep 2 13:26:14 2015 From: rsanto@indiana.edu (Rafi Santo) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 16:26:14 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <55e71f73.e5de440a.d8ee8.ffffc165@mx.google.com> References: <55E37E99.000004FA@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <12553216-10FA-4C70-8D8F-097266281640@gmail.com> <55E4EF7C.7090500@mira.net> <55E526CC.6080400@mira.net> <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC311027525EA@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> <55E5C259.9060101@mira.net> <000f01d0e4de$fb40b960$f1c22c20$@att.net> <001701d0e4e7$ad752be0$085f83a0$@att.net> <002501d0e58e$ee919760$cbb4c620$@att.net> <55E710F5.2020903@mira.net> <55e71f73.e5de440a.d8ee8.ffffc165@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Pardon the tangent, but I couldn't help but posting this recent paper that was presented last month at the ASA: http://kieranhealy.org/files/papers/fuck-nuance.pdf Aside from having a catchy title, it's pretty relevant to this discussion. On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Lplarry wrote: > I hope I am not going off on a tangent. The concept "morphic" and the > notion that the four approach's are equally valid but express different > aspects of THE RELATION. > The notion of difference/relation as a unity and each difference is > equally valid but expressing a different "character" within the relation > (as a unity) > Not abstracted or reduced aspects but "morphic" aspects?. > If this is too idio just ignore my question. It is coming from left field. > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Andy Blunden" > Sent: ?2015-?09-?02 8:10 AM > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > So this is a diagnostic tool, Peg? > Could you spell this out a little more for someone who still > doesn't grasp what you are talking about? :) > andy > intrigued. > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 3/09/2015 12:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > > What I did not make clear is that the JoHari window is not really the > same as a matrix. It is a different kind of tool than I think David and > Peter are thinking about. > > Here's the trick: You change the pane sizes to emphasize the one of the > four panes you are currently acting on -- but all four panes are always > there. > > So you can make the "concrete specific" pane HUGE by moving the top > bottom inner divider far to the right and moving the left right inner > divider far to the bottom. Or you can move only one of the dividers. > And you can move the dividers without such extremes. > > > > Even if a diagnosis/treatment only does the first move I described, > there's little abstract involved. I don't mind that so much if the actors > are involved in an emergency triage activity, but without the abstract you > are going on observables very influenced by perceptual and cultural access > of the actors and you might not even have the most useful template from the > general to guide/evaluate your trials and errors. So you'd better shift > the panes pretty soon before things get way off base. > > > > You can also fool around with the arrangement of the terms that name the > panes: Do you get more out of concrete vs. specific or more out of > specific vs. concrete (in David's terms the anchors for the cline). Same > for abstract vs. concrete or concrete vs. abstract. > > PG > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Peg > Griffin > > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:55 PM > > To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > As far as I understand those terms (nomothetic and idiographic), the > combined motor method does unite them and so arrives at dual stimulation, > given the non-accidental mosaic. > > But I don't know that my understanding goes far enough or too far! > > Peg > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike > cole > > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:08 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > Is that simultaneously uniting the nomothetic and idiographic, Peg? That > is the way Luria talked about it. > > mike > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Peg Griffin > wrote: > > > >> Just in a short-hand: > >> > >> Concrete Specific: Zasetsky (The man with the shattered world) > >> > >> Concrete General: People with traumatic brain injury during WWII > >> > >> Abstract General: Brain is a mosaic of specific domains with actions > >> that interact in dual stimulations (not pure will) > >> > >> Abstract Specific: A man acts to recall using images; it fails on a > >> certain target. The man starts appears to abandon the recall by > >> acting an intimately related system ? e.g., reciting the alphabet. > >> But the recital is ?interrupted? when it bumps into the original > >> recall target and the recall is successful. > >> > >> > >> > >> For diagnosis and/or treatment, we must rise to the concrete specific. > >> > >> > >> > >> Sorry I don?t have time to develop this further but I am sure many on > >> this list do, and I know that Luria and Sacks did so in wondrous and > >> glorious instances. > >> > >> Peg > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net] > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:21 AM > >> To: Peg Griffin; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > >> > >> > >> > >> Could you give an example, Peg? > >> andy > >> > >> _____ > >> > >> *Andy Blunden* > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > >> > >> On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > >> > >> What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and Sachs ? > >> with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made (based > >> on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and Harrington > >> Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill in each of the > four cells in > >> the square about an issue of interest. It helps me think about > >> genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. > >> Concrete Abstract > >> Specific > >> General > >> > >> A romantic square, > >> Peg > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > >> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rod > >> Parker-Rees > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM > >> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > >> > >> Thanks for posting this, Andy. > >> > >> I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his > >> reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his observation > >> that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event isolated > >> from other things or events. Its real object is to see and understand > >> the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'. > >> > >> We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or less) > >> on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but our > >> communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using these > >> categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of science > >> but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use of > >> language and more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The > >> romantic focus on an 'individual' can only ever be conducted in the > >> medium of a very un-individual language and no person's life could > >> possibly be understood without reference to relationships with other > >> persons which then spread roots and branches out to a forest of > connections, causes and consequences. > >> > >> David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of theory if > >> one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case and > >> Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the > >> concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but the > >> creative sources of great historical events and the important ideas > >> and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the contribution > >> individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than themselves > >> but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want neither to split > >> living reality into its elementary components nor to represent the > >> wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that lose the > properties of the phenomena themselves'. > >> > >> I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is > >> particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how all > >> minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' > >> lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory > >> associations which words bring with them in a way which, for most of > >> us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a > >> particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that every > >> person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, > >> behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface of a > >> pool of connections and associations which can never be shared with or > >> known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can only > >> go so far in understanding another person's understanding and much > >> less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone is a > >> very different thing from being able to share that knowledge in a > >> rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of the > >> spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge is > >> entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that swirl > beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! > >> > >> I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what lies > >> beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young children > >> are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so powerfully > >> dominated by abstractions. > >> > >> All the best, > >> > >> Rod > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> ] > >> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > >> Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > >> > >> Try this, in Word this time. > >> Andy > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> *Andy Blunden* > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > >> On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: > >> > >> ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the > >> chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST be > >> somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. > >> > >> After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas seems > >> appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended essay's > >> on his view of Romantic Science. > >> > >> It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, were > >> not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of their > >> enterprise encompassed those fields and more. > >> > >> Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual case in > >> no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their work. > >> Nor does Luria argue so. > >> > >> mike > >> ? > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg >> > wrote: > >> > >> I think the problem with this view of romantic science > >> is that it > >> completely precludes building a psychology on a > >> sociology. In that sense > >> (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist > >> at all. Vygotsky > >> certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the > >> individual case"; such > >> an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of > >> theory. I'm not sure > >> Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a > >> Shattered Mind" and > >> "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. > >> Remember the main > >> criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human > >> Conflicts" was always that > >> it was too quantitative. > >> > >> There are, of course, some areas of psychology that > >> are well studied as > >> case histories. Recently, I've been looking into > >> suicidology, and in > >> particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered > >> the linguistic > >> analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have > >> been influenced, as > >> early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work > >> on schizophrinia). > >> Now you would think that if ever there was a field > >> that would benefit from > >> total immersion in the individual case, this is one. > >> But Shneidman says > >> that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal > >> phrases, and as a > >> consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively > >> (one of his first > >> studies was simply to sort a pile of real and > >> imitation suicide notes and > >> carefully note the criteria he had when he made > >> correct judgements). And of > >> course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide > >> is that the individual > >> case can be utterly disregarded, since the great > >> variations are > >> sociological and the psychological variables all seem > >> trivial, transient, > >> or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a > >> large scale (as we must > >> these days). Shneidman says he has never read a > >> suicide note he would want > >> to have written. > >> > >> David Kellogg > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden > >> >> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: > >> > >> > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' > >> style of Romantic > >> > Science was his complete immersion in the individual > >> case before him, and > >> > development of a science of complete persons. The > >> paradigm of this type of > >> > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative > >> Science" I suppose. The > >> > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each > >> case, e.g. facial > >> > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a > >> "covering law" for just this > >> > aspect. > >> > Andy > >> > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > *Andy Blunden* > >> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > >> < > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/> > >> > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > >> > > >> >> Mike, > >> >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that > >> naysayers were cited in > >> >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering > >> if some of that push back > >> >> was related to his practice of romantic science, > >> which, if I understand > >> >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in > >> the phenomena of > >> >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, > >> for example, immersed > >> >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His > >> writing prefigures the cell > >> >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of > >> microscopes could not confirm > >> >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner > >> and Sacks makes me > >> >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at > >> issue. Different styles > >> >> of research bring different construals. This may be > >> the bane of > >> >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really > >> make Sacks less of a > >> >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? > >> >> Henry > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole > >> > > >> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our > >> connections with Luria and > >> >>> the fact that we > >> >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a > >> romantic science. He was a > >> >>> shy > >> >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, > >> and the difference > >> >>> between > >> >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the > >> interview with them that > >> >>> someone > >> >>> pirated on > >> >>> to youtube. > >> >>> > >> >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, > >> engaging intellectually all > >> >>> the while. > >> >>> > >> >>> mike > >> >>> > >> >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin > >> >> martinl@azscience.org>> > >> >>> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the > >> privilege of spending an > >> >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting > >> Jerry Bruner and Carol > >> >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in for Sylvia who > >> couldn't make the dinner - it > >> >>>> was > >> >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you > >> ever hear from Bruner? I > >> >>>> wonder if he's still active. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Laura > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Sent from my iPad > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole > >> > > >> wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Dear Colleagues --- > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news > >> that Oliver Sacks has > >> >>>> succumbed to cancer. > >> >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. > >> >>>> mike > >> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM > >> >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; > >> Neurologist and Author > >> >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks > >> >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com >> lchcmike@gmail.com> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com > >> : > >> Oliver Sacks Dies at > >> 82; Neurologist > >> >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks > >> >>>> < > >> >>>> > >> > >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > >> a < > >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > >> a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 > >> 972441657668®i_id=0> > >> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >> >>>> By > >> >>>> GREGORY COWLES > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest > >> pathways in > >> >>>> best-selling > >> >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife > >> for a Hat,? achieving > >> >>>> a > >> >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. > >> >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: > >> http://nyti.ms/1LL040D > >> >>>> < > >> >>>> > >> > >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > >> a < > >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > >> a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 > >> 972441657668®i_id=0> > >> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >> >>>> To > >> >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times > >> articles, subscribe today. > >> >>>> See > >> >>>> Subscription Options. > >> >>>> < > >> >>>> > >> > >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC > >> IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP > >> AvEGfk= > >> < > >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC > >> IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP > >> AvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_i > >> d=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >> >>>> To > >> >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add > >> nytdirect@nytimes.com >> nytdirect@nytimes.com> > >> to your > >> >>>> address book. Advertisement > >> >>>> > >> >>>> < > >> >>>> > >> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto < > >> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secu > >> re.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn > >> 1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=Mis > >> tressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistr > >> essamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview> > >> &opzn&page= > >> > secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Copyright 2015 > >> >>>> < > >> >>>> > >> > >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP > >> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ== > >> < > >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP > >> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31 > >> 502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668&r > >> egi_id=0> > >> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcd > > > [The entire original message is not included.] -- Rafi Santo Project Lead Hive Research Lab hiveresearchlab.org A project of Indiana University and New York University Indiana University - Learning Sciences From dkellogg60@gmail.com Wed Sep 2 15:41:22 2015 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 07:41:22 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: References: <55E37E99.000004FA@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <12553216-10FA-4C70-8D8F-097266281640@gmail.com> <55E4EF7C.7090500@mira.net> <55E526CC.6080400@mira.net> <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC311027525EA@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> <55E5C259.9060101@mira.net> <000f01d0e4de$fb40b960$f1c22c20$@att.net> <001701d0e4e7$ad752be0$085f83a0$@att.net> <002501d0e58e$ee919760$cbb4c620$@att.net> <55E710F5.2020903@mira.net> <55e71f73.e5de440a.d8ee8.ffffc165@mx.google.com> Message-ID: I wasn't really critiquing the two-by-two matrix: actually, I think that such matrices are in fact composed of clines, although we tend not to use them that way. After thirty years of teaching, I find that I have myself have become an example person, and it's almost impossible for me to grasp "Romantic Science" as a concept or even as a diagramme without examples; being a linguist, the examples that come naturally to me are languages. There is a problem with my example that won't fit in the matrix, though. Let us consider a language as a bounded historical entity (Neanderthal, or we can use English, but it will help if we take a point of view very far in the future, when English has become a dead language, preferably through the wholesale extinction of our species, because otherwise we can say, as some linguists do say, that no language ever really dies--it just changes into another language). The language system as a whole is essentially the same as the set of all utterances ever made or written in that language. Because the language is dead, no other utterances are possible--nobody will say them, and nobody can relate them to any context. In this situation, the cline of instantiation and the cline of abstraction (which is really the cline of potential versus real) must join, and that means that lines that were supposedly perpendicular turn out to be parallel. I found the paper on nuance extremely puzzling, precisely because of the lack of examples, so I read it as an attack on conversation analysis. Then it made perfect sense. But I found the references to "making love" in the description of peasant marriages rather curious, given the title of the paper. So now the word "fuck" is used in academic discourse, to talk about French peasants making love....it kind of leaves skidmarks on brain, somehow. I once met a doctor in Sudan studying diarrhea. In the course of the evening,he managed to make his study, and even its subject matter, truly fascinating; we could hardly wait till morning to see if we could find samples of some of the things he was talking about. Similarly, one of the first linguistics papers I ever read, by my old professor James McCawley at University of Chicago, was all about why you can say "fan-fucking-tastic" and but you cannot say "fantas-fucking-tic"; I remember the paper well, and later I used it to analyze a song from "My Fair Lady" ("Abso-blooming-lutely still" in "Wouldn't it lov-er-ly?"). I'm not arguing that we can or even should abolish the euphemism treadmills; we can't. Paul recently sent around a call for papers for something called "The Journal of Negro Education", and I did a double take until I realized it was the journal of W.E.B. Dubois. This summer, I learned that in South Africa "black" is perjorative, and "colored" is used self-descriptively; in America (I think) it's the other way around. But a sociologist should probably be aware that the word "fuck" has actually NOT lost all semantic content: if it had it would not be the staple of rape-friendly discourses like pop music and hip-hop. Or is that just nuance? David Kellogg On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Rafi Santo wrote: > Pardon the tangent, but I couldn't help but posting this recent paper that > was presented last month at the ASA: > http://kieranhealy.org/files/papers/fuck-nuance.pdf > > Aside from having a catchy title, it's pretty relevant to this discussion. > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Lplarry wrote: > > > I hope I am not going off on a tangent. The concept "morphic" and the > > notion that the four approach's are equally valid but express different > > aspects of THE RELATION. > > The notion of difference/relation as a unity and each difference is > > equally valid but expressing a different "character" within the relation > > (as a unity) > > Not abstracted or reduced aspects but "morphic" aspects?. > > If this is too idio just ignore my question. It is coming from left > field. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "Andy Blunden" > > Sent: ?2015-?09-?02 8:10 AM > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > So this is a diagnostic tool, Peg? > > Could you spell this out a little more for someone who still > > doesn't grasp what you are talking about? :) > > andy > > intrigued. > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > On 3/09/2015 12:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > > > What I did not make clear is that the JoHari window is not really the > > same as a matrix. It is a different kind of tool than I think David and > > Peter are thinking about. > > > Here's the trick: You change the pane sizes to emphasize the one of the > > four panes you are currently acting on -- but all four panes are always > > there. > > > So you can make the "concrete specific" pane HUGE by moving the top > > bottom inner divider far to the right and moving the left right inner > > divider far to the bottom. Or you can move only one of the dividers. > > And you can move the dividers without such extremes. > > > > > > Even if a diagnosis/treatment only does the first move I described, > > there's little abstract involved. I don't mind that so much if the > actors > > are involved in an emergency triage activity, but without the abstract > you > > are going on observables very influenced by perceptual and cultural > access > > of the actors and you might not even have the most useful template from > the > > general to guide/evaluate your trials and errors. So you'd better shift > > the panes pretty soon before things get way off base. > > > > > > You can also fool around with the arrangement of the terms that name > the > > panes: Do you get more out of concrete vs. specific or more out of > > specific vs. concrete (in David's terms the anchors for the cline). Same > > for abstract vs. concrete or concrete vs. abstract. > > > PG > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Peg > > Griffin > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:55 PM > > > To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > > As far as I understand those terms (nomothetic and idiographic), the > > combined motor method does unite them and so arrives at dual stimulation, > > given the non-accidental mosaic. > > > But I don't know that my understanding goes far enough or too far! > > > Peg > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike > > cole > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:08 PM > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > > Is that simultaneously uniting the nomothetic and idiographic, Peg? > That > > is the way Luria talked about it. > > > mike > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Peg Griffin > > wrote: > > > > > >> Just in a short-hand: > > >> > > >> Concrete Specific: Zasetsky (The man with the shattered world) > > >> > > >> Concrete General: People with traumatic brain injury during WWII > > >> > > >> Abstract General: Brain is a mosaic of specific domains with actions > > >> that interact in dual stimulations (not pure will) > > >> > > >> Abstract Specific: A man acts to recall using images; it fails on a > > >> certain target. The man starts appears to abandon the recall by > > >> acting an intimately related system ? e.g., reciting the alphabet. > > >> But the recital is ?interrupted? when it bumps into the original > > >> recall target and the recall is successful. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> For diagnosis and/or treatment, we must rise to the concrete specific. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Sorry I don?t have time to develop this further but I am sure many on > > >> this list do, and I know that Luria and Sacks did so in wondrous and > > >> glorious instances. > > >> > > >> Peg > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net] > > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:21 AM > > >> To: Peg Griffin; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > > >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Could you give an example, Peg? > > >> andy > > >> > > >> _____ > > >> > > >> *Andy Blunden* > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > >> > > >> On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > > >> > > >> What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and Sachs ? > > >> with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made (based > > >> on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and Harrington > > >> Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill in each of the > > four cells in > > >> the square about an issue of interest. It helps me think about > > >> genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. > > >> Concrete Abstract > > >> Specific > > >> General > > >> > > >> A romantic square, > > >> Peg > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > >> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rod > > >> Parker-Rees > > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM > > >> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > >> > > >> Thanks for posting this, Andy. > > >> > > >> I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his > > >> reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his observation > > >> that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event isolated > > >> from other things or events. Its real object is to see and understand > > >> the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'. > > >> > > >> We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or less) > > >> on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but our > > >> communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using these > > >> categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of science > > >> but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use of > > >> language and more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The > > >> romantic focus on an 'individual' can only ever be conducted in the > > >> medium of a very un-individual language and no person's life could > > >> possibly be understood without reference to relationships with other > > >> persons which then spread roots and branches out to a forest of > > connections, causes and consequences. > > >> > > >> David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of theory if > > >> one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case and > > >> Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the > > >> concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but the > > >> creative sources of great historical events and the important ideas > > >> and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the contribution > > >> individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than themselves > > >> but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want neither to split > > >> living reality into its elementary components nor to represent the > > >> wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that lose the > > properties of the phenomena themselves'. > > >> > > >> I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is > > >> particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how all > > >> minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' > > >> lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory > > >> associations which words bring with them in a way which, for most of > > >> us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a > > >> particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that every > > >> person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, > > >> behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface of a > > >> pool of connections and associations which can never be shared with or > > >> known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can only > > >> go so far in understanding another person's understanding and much > > >> less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone is a > > >> very different thing from being able to share that knowledge in a > > >> rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of the > > >> spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge is > > >> entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that swirl > > beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! > > >> > > >> I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what lies > > >> beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young children > > >> are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so powerfully > > >> dominated by abstractions. > > >> > > >> All the best, > > >> > > >> Rod > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees= > plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >> ] > > >> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > > >> Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > >> > > >> Try this, in Word this time. > > >> Andy > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >> *Andy Blunden* > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > >> On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: > > >> > > >> ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the > > >> chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST be > > >> somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. > > >> > > >> After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas seems > > >> appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended essay's > > >> on his view of Romantic Science. > > >> > > >> It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, were > > >> not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of their > > >> enterprise encompassed those fields and more. > > >> > > >> Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual case in > > >> no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their work. > > >> Nor does Luria argue so. > > >> > > >> mike > > >> ? > > >> > > >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg > >> > wrote: > > >> > > >> I think the problem with this view of romantic science > > >> is that it > > >> completely precludes building a psychology on a > > >> sociology. In that sense > > >> (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist > > >> at all. Vygotsky > > >> certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the > > >> individual case"; such > > >> an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of > > >> theory. I'm not sure > > >> Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a > > >> Shattered Mind" and > > >> "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. > > >> Remember the main > > >> criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human > > >> Conflicts" was always that > > >> it was too quantitative. > > >> > > >> There are, of course, some areas of psychology that > > >> are well studied as > > >> case histories. Recently, I've been looking into > > >> suicidology, and in > > >> particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered > > >> the linguistic > > >> analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have > > >> been influenced, as > > >> early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work > > >> on schizophrinia). > > >> Now you would think that if ever there was a field > > >> that would benefit from > > >> total immersion in the individual case, this is one. > > >> But Shneidman says > > >> that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal > > >> phrases, and as a > > >> consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively > > >> (one of his first > > >> studies was simply to sort a pile of real and > > >> imitation suicide notes and > > >> carefully note the criteria he had when he made > > >> correct judgements). And of > > >> course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide > > >> is that the individual > > >> case can be utterly disregarded, since the great > > >> variations are > > >> sociological and the psychological variables all seem > > >> trivial, transient, > > >> or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a > > >> large scale (as we must > > >> these days). Shneidman says he has never read a > > >> suicide note he would want > > >> to have written. > > >> > > >> David Kellogg > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden > > >> > >> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: > > >> > > >> > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' > > >> style of Romantic > > >> > Science was his complete immersion in the individual > > >> case before him, and > > >> > development of a science of complete persons. The > > >> paradigm of this type of > > >> > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative > > >> Science" I suppose. The > > >> > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each > > >> case, e.g. facial > > >> > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a > > >> "covering law" for just this > > >> > aspect. > > >> > Andy > > >> > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >> > *Andy Blunden* > > >> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > >> < > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/> > > >> > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> Mike, > > >> >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that > > >> naysayers were cited in > > >> >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering > > >> if some of that push back > > >> >> was related to his practice of romantic science, > > >> which, if I understand > > >> >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in > > >> the phenomena of > > >> >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, > > >> for example, immersed > > >> >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His > > >> writing prefigures the cell > > >> >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of > > >> microscopes could not confirm > > >> >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner > > >> and Sacks makes me > > >> >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at > > >> issue. Different styles > > >> >> of research bring different construals. This may be > > >> the bane of > > >> >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really > > >> make Sacks less of a > > >> >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? > > >> >> Henry > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole > > >> >> > > >> wrote: > > >> >>> > > >> >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our > > >> connections with Luria and > > >> >>> the fact that we > > >> >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a > > >> romantic science. He was a > > >> >>> shy > > >> >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, > > >> and the difference > > >> >>> between > > >> >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the > > >> interview with them that > > >> >>> someone > > >> >>> pirated on > > >> >>> to youtube. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, > > >> engaging intellectually all > > >> >>> the while. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> mike > > >> >>> > > >> >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin > > >> > >> martinl@azscience.org>> > > >> >>> wrote: > > >> >>> > > >> >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the > > >> privilege of spending an > > >> >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting > > >> Jerry Bruner and Carol > > >> >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in for Sylvia who > > >> couldn't make the dinner - it > > >> >>>> was > > >> >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you > > >> ever hear from Bruner? I > > >> >>>> wonder if he's still active. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Laura > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Sent from my iPad > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole > > >> >> > > >> wrote: > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Dear Colleagues --- > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news > > >> that Oliver Sacks has > > >> >>>> succumbed to cancer. > > >> >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. > > >> >>>> mike > > >> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM > > >> >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; > > >> Neurologist and Author > > >> >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks > > >> >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com > > >> lchcmike@gmail.com> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com > > >> >: > > >> Oliver Sacks Dies at > > >> 82; Neurologist > > >> >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks > > >> >>>> < > > >> >>>> > > >> > > >> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > >> a < > > >> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > >> a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 > > >> 972441657668®i_id=0> > > >> > > > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > > >> >>>> By > > >> >>>> GREGORY COWLES > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest > > >> pathways in > > >> >>>> best-selling > > >> >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife > > >> for a Hat,? achieving > > >> >>>> a > > >> >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. > > >> >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: > > >> http://nyti.ms/1LL040D > > >> >>>> < > > >> >>>> > > >> > > >> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > >> a < > > >> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > >> a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 > > >> 972441657668®i_id=0> > > >> > > > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > > >> >>>> To > > >> >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times > > >> articles, subscribe today. > > >> >>>> See > > >> >>>> Subscription Options. > > >> >>>> < > > >> >>>> > > >> > > >> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC > > >> IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP > > >> AvEGfk= > > >> < > > >> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC > > >> IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP > > >> AvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_i > > >> d=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > > >> > > > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > > >> >>>> To > > >> >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add > > >> nytdirect@nytimes.com > >> nytdirect@nytimes.com> > > >> to your > > >> >>>> address book. Advertisement > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> < > > >> >>>> > > >> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto < > > >> > http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secu > > >> > re.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn > > >> 1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=Mis > > >> tressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistr > > >> essamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview> > > >> &opzn&page= > > >> > > > secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> Copyright 2015 > > >> >>>> < > > >> >>>> > > >> > > >> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP > > >> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ== > > >> < > > >> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP > > >> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31 > > >> 502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668&r > > >> egi_id=0> > > >> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcd > > > > > > [The entire original message is not included.] > > > > > -- > > Rafi Santo > Project Lead > Hive Research Lab > hiveresearchlab.org > A project of Indiana University and New York University > > Indiana University - Learning Sciences > From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Sep 2 16:14:13 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 16:14:13 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: References: <55E37E99.000004FA@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <12553216-10FA-4C70-8D8F-097266281640@gmail.com> <55E4EF7C.7090500@mira.net> <55E526CC.6080400@mira.net> <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC311027525EA@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> <55E5C259.9060101@mira.net> <000f01d0e4de$fb40b960$f1c22c20$@att.net> <001701d0e4e7$ad752be0$085f83a0$@att.net> <002501d0e58e$ee919760$cbb4c620$@att.net> <55E710F5.2020903@mira.net> <55e71f73.e5de440a.d8ee8.ffffc165@mx.google.com> Message-ID: I am having a lot of difficulty of relating the recent discussion to the work of either ARL or Oliver. mike On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 3:41 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > I wasn't really critiquing the two-by-two matrix: actually, I think that > such matrices are in fact composed of clines, although we tend not to use > them that way. After thirty years of teaching, I find that I have myself > have become an example person, and it's almost impossible for me to grasp > "Romantic Science" as a concept or even as a diagramme without examples; > being a linguist, the examples that come naturally to me are languages. > > There is a problem with my example that won't fit in the matrix, though. > Let us consider a language as a bounded historical entity (Neanderthal, or > we can use English, but it will help if we take a point of view very far in > the future, when English has become a dead language, preferably through the > wholesale extinction of our species, because otherwise we can say, as some > linguists do say, that no language ever really dies--it just changes into > another language). The language system as a whole is essentially the same > as the set of all utterances ever made or written in that language. Because > the language is dead, no other utterances are possible--nobody will say > them, and nobody can relate them to any context. In this situation, the > cline of instantiation and the cline of abstraction (which is really the > cline of potential versus real) must join, and that means that lines that > were supposedly perpendicular turn out to be parallel. > > I found the paper on nuance extremely puzzling, precisely because of the > lack of examples, so I read it as an attack on conversation analysis. Then > it made perfect sense. But I found the references to "making love" in the > description of peasant marriages rather curious, given the title of the > paper. So now the word "fuck" is used in academic discourse, to talk about > French peasants making love....it kind of leaves skidmarks on brain, > somehow. > > I once met a doctor in Sudan studying diarrhea. In the course of the > evening,he managed to make his study, and even its subject matter, truly > fascinating; we could hardly wait till morning to see if we could find > samples of some of the things he was talking about. Similarly, one of the > first linguistics papers I ever read, by my old professor James McCawley at > University of Chicago, was all about why you can say "fan-fucking-tastic" > and but you cannot say "fantas-fucking-tic"; I remember the paper well, and > later I used it to analyze a song from "My Fair Lady" > ("Abso-blooming-lutely still" in "Wouldn't it lov-er-ly?"). > > I'm not arguing that we can or even should abolish the euphemism > treadmills; we can't. Paul recently sent around a call for papers for > something called "The Journal of Negro Education", and I did a double take > until I realized it was the journal of W.E.B. Dubois. This summer, I > learned that in South Africa "black" is perjorative, and "colored" is used > self-descriptively; in America (I think) it's the other way around. But a > sociologist should probably be aware that the word "fuck" has actually NOT > lost all semantic content: if it had it would not be the staple of > rape-friendly discourses like pop music and hip-hop. Or is that just > nuance? > > David Kellogg > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Rafi Santo wrote: > > > Pardon the tangent, but I couldn't help but posting this recent paper > that > > was presented last month at the ASA: > > http://kieranhealy.org/files/papers/fuck-nuance.pdf > > > > Aside from having a catchy title, it's pretty relevant to this > discussion. > > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Lplarry wrote: > > > > > I hope I am not going off on a tangent. The concept "morphic" and the > > > notion that the four approach's are equally valid but express > different > > > aspects of THE RELATION. > > > The notion of difference/relation as a unity and each difference is > > > equally valid but expressing a different "character" within the > relation > > > (as a unity) > > > Not abstracted or reduced aspects but "morphic" aspects?. > > > If this is too idio just ignore my question. It is coming from left > > field. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: "Andy Blunden" > > > Sent: ?2015-?09-?02 8:10 AM > > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > > So this is a diagnostic tool, Peg? > > > Could you spell this out a little more for someone who still > > > doesn't grasp what you are talking about? :) > > > andy > > > intrigued. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > On 3/09/2015 12:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > > > > What I did not make clear is that the JoHari window is not really the > > > same as a matrix. It is a different kind of tool than I think David > and > > > Peter are thinking about. > > > > Here's the trick: You change the pane sizes to emphasize the one of > the > > > four panes you are currently acting on -- but all four panes are always > > > there. > > > > So you can make the "concrete specific" pane HUGE by moving the top > > > bottom inner divider far to the right and moving the left right inner > > > divider far to the bottom. Or you can move only one of the dividers. > > > And you can move the dividers without such extremes. > > > > > > > > Even if a diagnosis/treatment only does the first move I described, > > > there's little abstract involved. I don't mind that so much if the > > actors > > > are involved in an emergency triage activity, but without the abstract > > you > > > are going on observables very influenced by perceptual and cultural > > access > > > of the actors and you might not even have the most useful template from > > the > > > general to guide/evaluate your trials and errors. So you'd better > shift > > > the panes pretty soon before things get way off base. > > > > > > > > You can also fool around with the arrangement of the terms that name > > the > > > panes: Do you get more out of concrete vs. specific or more out of > > > specific vs. concrete (in David's terms the anchors for the cline). > Same > > > for abstract vs. concrete or concrete vs. abstract. > > > > PG > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Peg > > > Griffin > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:55 PM > > > > To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > > > > As far as I understand those terms (nomothetic and idiographic), the > > > combined motor method does unite them and so arrives at dual > stimulation, > > > given the non-accidental mosaic. > > > > But I don't know that my understanding goes far enough or too far! > > > > Peg > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike > > > cole > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:08 PM > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > > > > Is that simultaneously uniting the nomothetic and idiographic, Peg? > > That > > > is the way Luria talked about it. > > > > mike > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Peg Griffin > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Just in a short-hand: > > > >> > > > >> Concrete Specific: Zasetsky (The man with the shattered world) > > > >> > > > >> Concrete General: People with traumatic brain injury during WWII > > > >> > > > >> Abstract General: Brain is a mosaic of specific domains with actions > > > >> that interact in dual stimulations (not pure will) > > > >> > > > >> Abstract Specific: A man acts to recall using images; it fails on a > > > >> certain target. The man starts appears to abandon the recall by > > > >> acting an intimately related system ? e.g., reciting the alphabet. > > > >> But the recital is ?interrupted? when it bumps into the original > > > >> recall target and the recall is successful. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> For diagnosis and/or treatment, we must rise to the concrete > specific. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Sorry I don?t have time to develop this further but I am sure many > on > > > >> this list do, and I know that Luria and Sacks did so in wondrous and > > > >> glorious instances. > > > >> > > > >> Peg > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net] > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:21 AM > > > >> To: Peg Griffin; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > > > >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Could you give an example, Peg? > > > >> andy > > > >> > > > >> _____ > > > >> > > > >> *Andy Blunden* > > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > >> > > > >> On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > > > >> > > > >> What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and Sachs > ? > > > >> with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made > (based > > > >> on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and Harrington > > > >> Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill in each of > the > > > four cells in > > > >> the square about an issue of interest. It helps me think about > > > >> genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. > > > >> Concrete Abstract > > > >> Specific > > > >> General > > > >> > > > >> A romantic square, > > > >> Peg > > > >> > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > >> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of > Rod > > > >> Parker-Rees > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM > > > >> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > >> > > > >> Thanks for posting this, Andy. > > > >> > > > >> I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his > > > >> reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his observation > > > >> that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event isolated > > > >> from other things or events. Its real object is to see and > understand > > > >> the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'. > > > >> > > > >> We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or > less) > > > >> on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but our > > > >> communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using these > > > >> categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of > science > > > >> but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use of > > > >> language and more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The > > > >> romantic focus on an 'individual' can only ever be conducted in the > > > >> medium of a very un-individual language and no person's life could > > > >> possibly be understood without reference to relationships with other > > > >> persons which then spread roots and branches out to a forest of > > > connections, causes and consequences. > > > >> > > > >> David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of theory > if > > > >> one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case and > > > >> Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the > > > >> concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but the > > > >> creative sources of great historical events and the important ideas > > > >> and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the > contribution > > > >> individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than > themselves > > > >> but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want neither to > split > > > >> living reality into its elementary components nor to represent the > > > >> wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that lose the > > > properties of the phenomena themselves'. > > > >> > > > >> I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is > > > >> particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how > all > > > >> minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' > > > >> lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory > > > >> associations which words bring with them in a way which, for most of > > > >> us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a > > > >> particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that every > > > >> person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, > > > >> behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface of a > > > >> pool of connections and associations which can never be shared with > or > > > >> known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can only > > > >> go so far in understanding another person's understanding and much > > > >> less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone is a > > > >> very different thing from being able to share that knowledge in a > > > >> rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of the > > > >> spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge is > > > >> entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that swirl > > > beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! > > > >> > > > >> I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what > lies > > > >> beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young children > > > >> are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so > powerfully > > > >> dominated by abstractions. > > > >> > > > >> All the best, > > > >> > > > >> Rod > > > >> > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees= > plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees= > > plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > >> ] > > > >> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > > > >> Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 > > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > >> > > > >> Try this, in Word this time. > > > >> Andy > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >> *Andy Blunden* > > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > >> On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: > > > >> > > > >> ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the > > > >> chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST be > > > >> somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. > > > >> > > > >> After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas > seems > > > >> appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended > essay's > > > >> on his view of Romantic Science. > > > >> > > > >> It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, > were > > > >> not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of their > > > >> enterprise encompassed those fields and more. > > > >> > > > >> Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual case > in > > > >> no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their work. > > > >> Nor does Luria argue so. > > > >> > > > >> mike > > > >> ? > > > >> > > > >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg < > dkellogg60@gmail.com > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> I think the problem with this view of romantic science > > > >> is that it > > > >> completely precludes building a psychology on a > > > >> sociology. In that sense > > > >> (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist > > > >> at all. Vygotsky > > > >> certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the > > > >> individual case"; such > > > >> an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of > > > >> theory. I'm not sure > > > >> Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a > > > >> Shattered Mind" and > > > >> "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. > > > >> Remember the main > > > >> criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human > > > >> Conflicts" was always that > > > >> it was too quantitative. > > > >> > > > >> There are, of course, some areas of psychology that > > > >> are well studied as > > > >> case histories. Recently, I've been looking into > > > >> suicidology, and in > > > >> particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered > > > >> the linguistic > > > >> analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have > > > >> been influenced, as > > > >> early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work > > > >> on schizophrinia). > > > >> Now you would think that if ever there was a field > > > >> that would benefit from > > > >> total immersion in the individual case, this is one. > > > >> But Shneidman says > > > >> that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal > > > >> phrases, and as a > > > >> consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively > > > >> (one of his first > > > >> studies was simply to sort a pile of real and > > > >> imitation suicide notes and > > > >> carefully note the criteria he had when he made > > > >> correct judgements). And of > > > >> course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide > > > >> is that the individual > > > >> case can be utterly disregarded, since the great > > > >> variations are > > > >> sociological and the psychological variables all seem > > > >> trivial, transient, > > > >> or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a > > > >> large scale (as we must > > > >> these days). Shneidman says he has never read a > > > >> suicide note he would want > > > >> to have written. > > > >> > > > >> David Kellogg > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden > > > >> > > >> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' > > > >> style of Romantic > > > >> > Science was his complete immersion in the individual > > > >> case before him, and > > > >> > development of a science of complete persons. The > > > >> paradigm of this type of > > > >> > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative > > > >> Science" I suppose. The > > > >> > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each > > > >> case, e.g. facial > > > >> > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a > > > >> "covering law" for just this > > > >> > aspect. > > > >> > Andy > > > >> > > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >> > *Andy Blunden* > > > >> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > >> < > > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/> > > > >> > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> >> Mike, > > > >> >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that > > > >> naysayers were cited in > > > >> >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering > > > >> if some of that push back > > > >> >> was related to his practice of romantic science, > > > >> which, if I understand > > > >> >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in > > > >> the phenomena of > > > >> >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, > > > >> for example, immersed > > > >> >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His > > > >> writing prefigures the cell > > > >> >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of > > > >> microscopes could not confirm > > > >> >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner > > > >> and Sacks makes me > > > >> >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at > > > >> issue. Different styles > > > >> >> of research bring different construals. This may be > > > >> the bane of > > > >> >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really > > > >> make Sacks less of a > > > >> >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? > > > >> >> Henry > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole > > > >> mcole@ucsd.edu > > >> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our > > > >> connections with Luria and > > > >> >>> the fact that we > > > >> >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a > > > >> romantic science. He was a > > > >> >>> shy > > > >> >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, > > > >> and the difference > > > >> >>> between > > > >> >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the > > > >> interview with them that > > > >> >>> someone > > > >> >>> pirated on > > > >> >>> to youtube. > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, > > > >> engaging intellectually all > > > >> >>> the while. > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> mike > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin > > > >> > > > >> martinl@azscience.org>> > > > >> >>> wrote: > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the > > > >> privilege of spending an > > > >> >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting > > > >> Jerry Bruner and Carol > > > >> >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in for Sylvia who > > > >> couldn't make the dinner - it > > > >> >>>> was > > > >> >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you > > > >> ever hear from Bruner? I > > > >> >>>> wonder if he's still active. > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> Laura > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> Sent from my iPad > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole > > > >> mcole@ucsd.edu > > >> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> Dear Colleagues --- > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news > > > >> that Oliver Sacks has > > > >> >>>> succumbed to cancer. > > > >> >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. > > > >> >>>> mike > > > >> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM > > > >> >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; > > > >> Neurologist and Author > > > >> >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks > > > >> >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com > > > > >> lchcmike@gmail.com> > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com > > > >> sashacole510@gmail.com > > >: > > > >> Oliver Sacks Dies at > > > >> 82; Neurologist > > > >> >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks > > > >> >>>> < > > > >> >>>> > > > >> > > > >> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > > >> a < > > > >> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > > >> > a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 > > > >> 972441657668®i_id=0> > > > >> > > > > > > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > > > >> >>>> By > > > >> >>>> GREGORY COWLES > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest > > > >> pathways in > > > >> >>>> best-selling > > > >> >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife > > > >> for a Hat,? achieving > > > >> >>>> a > > > >> >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. > > > >> >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: > > > >> http://nyti.ms/1LL040D > > > >> >>>> < > > > >> >>>> > > > >> > > > >> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > > >> a < > > > >> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > > >> > a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 > > > >> 972441657668®i_id=0> > > > >> > > > > > > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > > > >> >>>> To > > > >> >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times > > > >> articles, subscribe today. > > > >> >>>> See > > > >> >>>> Subscription Options. > > > >> >>>> < > > > >> >>>> > > > >> > > > >> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC > > > >> > IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP > > > >> AvEGfk= > > > >> < > > > >> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC > > > >> > IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP > > > >> > AvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_i > > > >> d=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > > > >> > > > > > > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > > > >> >>>> To > > > >> >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add > > > >> nytdirect@nytimes.com > > >> nytdirect@nytimes.com> > > > >> to your > > > >> >>>> address book. Advertisement > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> < > > > >> >>>> > > > >> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto < > > > >> > > http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secu > > > >> > > re.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn > > > >> > 1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=Mis > > > >> > tressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistr > > > >> essamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview> > > > >> &opzn&page= > > > >> > > > > > > secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>> Copyright 2015 > > > >> >>>> < > > > >> >>>> > > > >> > > > >> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP > > > >> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ== > > > >> < > > > >> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP > > > >> > IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31 > > > >> > 502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668&r > > > >> egi_id=0> > > > >> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcd > > > > > > > > > [The entire original message is not included.] > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Rafi Santo > > Project Lead > > Hive Research Lab > > hiveresearchlab.org > > A project of Indiana University and New York University > > > > Indiana University - Learning Sciences > > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From dkellogg60@gmail.com Wed Sep 2 17:20:09 2015 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 09:20:09 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: References: <55E37E99.000004FA@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <12553216-10FA-4C70-8D8F-097266281640@gmail.com> <55E4EF7C.7090500@mira.net> <55E526CC.6080400@mira.net> <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC311027525EA@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> <55E5C259.9060101@mira.net> <000f01d0e4de$fb40b960$f1c22c20$@att.net> <001701d0e4e7$ad752be0$085f83a0$@att.net> <002501d0e58e$ee919760$cbb4c620$@att.net> <55E710F5.2020903@mira.net> <55e71f73.e5de440a.d8ee8.ffffc165@mx.google.com> Message-ID: I think it's the eternal problem, Mike: how do we relate the instance to the type? The usual solution is something like a division of labor: clinical versus theoretical. If you are doing clinical work, you start with the instance and if it doesn't relate to the type then we have to turn our backs on the type and treat the instance (e.g. when Sacks' cancer doesn't relate to the generalization that eye cancers do not normally metastasize to the liver). If you are a theoretician, like the gentleman urging us all to "fuck nuance", then you turn your back on the instance and consider an ideal type, or better yet, the system as a whole (e.g. when Durkheim said that the particular reasons for killing yourself that we find in suicide notes are utterly irrelevant and he approved when the British government started to just bag and bin them). I don't think that either Luria or Vygotsky fits into either category.They were both both theorizing clinicians and clinical theorists. Even in his case studies, Luria's interest was always in the "extreme type". And Vygotsky, who certainly believed in the "experimentum crucis", had a penchant for making the gendankenexperiment into a real experiment. Here too, though, there is a limit. I think the study of language development simply cannot use either the extreme type or the gedankexperiment, Language is just too sensitive to human self consciousness. In no other science is it permissible to fabricate data--do linguists get an exception just because its so much easier and therefore more of a tradition? I think not--and so I think that linguists like Langacker who don't use real data will inevitably get left out of a truly structural-functional-genetic approach. David Kellogg On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 8:14 AM, mike cole wrote: > I am having a lot of difficulty of relating the recent discussion to the > work of either ARL or Oliver. > mike > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 3:41 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > I wasn't really critiquing the two-by-two matrix: actually, I think that > > such matrices are in fact composed of clines, although we tend not to use > > them that way. After thirty years of teaching, I find that I have myself > > have become an example person, and it's almost impossible for me to grasp > > "Romantic Science" as a concept or even as a diagramme without examples; > > being a linguist, the examples that come naturally to me are languages. > > > > There is a problem with my example that won't fit in the matrix, though. > > Let us consider a language as a bounded historical entity (Neanderthal, > or > > we can use English, but it will help if we take a point of view very far > in > > the future, when English has become a dead language, preferably through > the > > wholesale extinction of our species, because otherwise we can say, as > some > > linguists do say, that no language ever really dies--it just changes into > > another language). The language system as a whole is essentially the same > > as the set of all utterances ever made or written in that language. > Because > > the language is dead, no other utterances are possible--nobody will say > > them, and nobody can relate them to any context. In this situation, the > > cline of instantiation and the cline of abstraction (which is really the > > cline of potential versus real) must join, and that means that lines that > > were supposedly perpendicular turn out to be parallel. > > > > I found the paper on nuance extremely puzzling, precisely because of the > > lack of examples, so I read it as an attack on conversation analysis. > Then > > it made perfect sense. But I found the references to "making love" in the > > description of peasant marriages rather curious, given the title of the > > paper. So now the word "fuck" is used in academic discourse, to talk > about > > French peasants making love....it kind of leaves skidmarks on brain, > > somehow. > > > > I once met a doctor in Sudan studying diarrhea. In the course of the > > evening,he managed to make his study, and even its subject matter, truly > > fascinating; we could hardly wait till morning to see if we could find > > samples of some of the things he was talking about. Similarly, one of the > > first linguistics papers I ever read, by my old professor James McCawley > at > > University of Chicago, was all about why you can say "fan-fucking-tastic" > > and but you cannot say "fantas-fucking-tic"; I remember the paper well, > and > > later I used it to analyze a song from "My Fair Lady" > > ("Abso-blooming-lutely still" in "Wouldn't it lov-er-ly?"). > > > > I'm not arguing that we can or even should abolish the euphemism > > treadmills; we can't. Paul recently sent around a call for papers for > > something called "The Journal of Negro Education", and I did a double > take > > until I realized it was the journal of W.E.B. Dubois. This summer, I > > learned that in South Africa "black" is perjorative, and "colored" is > used > > self-descriptively; in America (I think) it's the other way around. But a > > sociologist should probably be aware that the word "fuck" has actually > NOT > > lost all semantic content: if it had it would not be the staple of > > rape-friendly discourses like pop music and hip-hop. Or is that just > > nuance? > > > > David Kellogg > > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Rafi Santo wrote: > > > > > Pardon the tangent, but I couldn't help but posting this recent paper > > that > > > was presented last month at the ASA: > > > http://kieranhealy.org/files/papers/fuck-nuance.pdf > > > > > > Aside from having a catchy title, it's pretty relevant to this > > discussion. > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Lplarry wrote: > > > > > > > I hope I am not going off on a tangent. The concept "morphic" and > the > > > > notion that the four approach's are equally valid but express > > different > > > > aspects of THE RELATION. > > > > The notion of difference/relation as a unity and each difference is > > > > equally valid but expressing a different "character" within the > > relation > > > > (as a unity) > > > > Not abstracted or reduced aspects but "morphic" aspects?. > > > > If this is too idio just ignore my question. It is coming from left > > > field. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: "Andy Blunden" > > > > Sent: ?2015-?09-?02 8:10 AM > > > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > > > > So this is a diagnostic tool, Peg? > > > > Could you spell this out a little more for someone who still > > > > doesn't grasp what you are talking about? :) > > > > andy > > > > intrigued. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > On 3/09/2015 12:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > > > > > What I did not make clear is that the JoHari window is not really > the > > > > same as a matrix. It is a different kind of tool than I think David > > and > > > > Peter are thinking about. > > > > > Here's the trick: You change the pane sizes to emphasize the one of > > the > > > > four panes you are currently acting on -- but all four panes are > always > > > > there. > > > > > So you can make the "concrete specific" pane HUGE by moving the top > > > > bottom inner divider far to the right and moving the left right inner > > > > divider far to the bottom. Or you can move only one of the > dividers. > > > > And you can move the dividers without such extremes. > > > > > > > > > > Even if a diagnosis/treatment only does the first move I described, > > > > there's little abstract involved. I don't mind that so much if the > > > actors > > > > are involved in an emergency triage activity, but without the > abstract > > > you > > > > are going on observables very influenced by perceptual and cultural > > > access > > > > of the actors and you might not even have the most useful template > from > > > the > > > > general to guide/evaluate your trials and errors. So you'd better > > shift > > > > the panes pretty soon before things get way off base. > > > > > > > > > > You can also fool around with the arrangement of the terms that > name > > > the > > > > panes: Do you get more out of concrete vs. specific or more out of > > > > specific vs. concrete (in David's terms the anchors for the cline). > > Same > > > > for abstract vs. concrete or concrete vs. abstract. > > > > > PG > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of > Peg > > > > Griffin > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:55 PM > > > > > To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > > > > > > As far as I understand those terms (nomothetic and idiographic), > the > > > > combined motor method does unite them and so arrives at dual > > stimulation, > > > > given the non-accidental mosaic. > > > > > But I don't know that my understanding goes far enough or too far! > > > > > Peg > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of > mike > > > > cole > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:08 PM > > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > > > > > > Is that simultaneously uniting the nomothetic and idiographic, Peg? > > > That > > > > is the way Luria talked about it. > > > > > mike > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Peg Griffin > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Just in a short-hand: > > > > >> > > > > >> Concrete Specific: Zasetsky (The man with the shattered world) > > > > >> > > > > >> Concrete General: People with traumatic brain injury during WWII > > > > >> > > > > >> Abstract General: Brain is a mosaic of specific domains with > actions > > > > >> that interact in dual stimulations (not pure will) > > > > >> > > > > >> Abstract Specific: A man acts to recall using images; it fails > on a > > > > >> certain target. The man starts appears to abandon the recall by > > > > >> acting an intimately related system ? e.g., reciting the alphabet. > > > > >> But the recital is ?interrupted? when it bumps into the original > > > > >> recall target and the recall is successful. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> For diagnosis and/or treatment, we must rise to the concrete > > specific. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Sorry I don?t have time to develop this further but I am sure many > > on > > > > >> this list do, and I know that Luria and Sacks did so in wondrous > and > > > > >> glorious instances. > > > > >> > > > > >> Peg > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net] > > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:21 AM > > > > >> To: Peg Griffin; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > > > > >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Could you give an example, Peg? > > > > >> andy > > > > >> > > > > >> _____ > > > > >> > > > > >> *Andy Blunden* > > > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > >> > > > > >> On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and > Sachs > > ? > > > > >> with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made > > (based > > > > >> on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and Harrington > > > > >> Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill in each of > > the > > > > four cells in > > > > >> the square about an issue of interest. It helps me think about > > > > >> genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. > > > > >> Concrete Abstract > > > > >> Specific > > > > >> General > > > > >> > > > > >> A romantic square, > > > > >> Peg > > > > >> > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu > [mailto: > > > > >> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of > > Rod > > > > >> Parker-Rees > > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM > > > > >> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks for posting this, Andy. > > > > >> > > > > >> I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his > > > > >> reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his > observation > > > > >> that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event > isolated > > > > >> from other things or events. Its real object is to see and > > understand > > > > >> the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'. > > > > >> > > > > >> We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or > > less) > > > > >> on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but our > > > > >> communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using > these > > > > >> categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of > > science > > > > >> but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use of > > > > >> language and more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The > > > > >> romantic focus on an 'individual' can only ever be conducted in > the > > > > >> medium of a very un-individual language and no person's life could > > > > >> possibly be understood without reference to relationships with > other > > > > >> persons which then spread roots and branches out to a forest of > > > > connections, causes and consequences. > > > > >> > > > > >> David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of > theory > > if > > > > >> one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case and > > > > >> Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the > > > > >> concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but > the > > > > >> creative sources of great historical events and the important > ideas > > > > >> and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the > > contribution > > > > >> individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than > > themselves > > > > >> but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want neither to > > split > > > > >> living reality into its elementary components nor to represent the > > > > >> wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that lose the > > > > properties of the phenomena themselves'. > > > > >> > > > > >> I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is > > > > >> particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how > > all > > > > >> minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' > > > > >> lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory > > > > >> associations which words bring with them in a way which, for most > of > > > > >> us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a > > > > >> particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that every > > > > >> person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, > > > > >> behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface of a > > > > >> pool of connections and associations which can never be shared > with > > or > > > > >> known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can > only > > > > >> go so far in understanding another person's understanding and much > > > > >> less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone > is a > > > > >> very different thing from being able to share that knowledge in a > > > > >> rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of the > > > > >> spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge is > > > > >> entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that > swirl > > > > beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! > > > > >> > > > > >> I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what > > lies > > > > >> beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young > children > > > > >> are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so > > powerfully > > > > >> dominated by abstractions. > > > > >> > > > > >> All the best, > > > > >> > > > > >> Rod > > > > >> > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees= > > plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees= > > > plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > >> ] > > > > >> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > > > > >> Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 > > > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > >> > > > > >> Try this, in Word this time. > > > > >> Andy > > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > >> *Andy Blunden* > > > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > >> On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the > > > > >> chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST > be > > > > >> somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. > > > > >> > > > > >> After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas > > seems > > > > >> appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended > > essay's > > > > >> on his view of Romantic Science. > > > > >> > > > > >> It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, > > were > > > > >> not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of > their > > > > >> enterprise encompassed those fields and more. > > > > >> > > > > >> Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual > case > > in > > > > >> no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their > work. > > > > >> Nor does Luria argue so. > > > > >> > > > > >> mike > > > > >> ? > > > > >> > > > > >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg < > > dkellogg60@gmail.com > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> I think the problem with this view of romantic science > > > > >> is that it > > > > >> completely precludes building a psychology on a > > > > >> sociology. In that sense > > > > >> (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist > > > > >> at all. Vygotsky > > > > >> certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the > > > > >> individual case"; such > > > > >> an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of > > > > >> theory. I'm not sure > > > > >> Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a > > > > >> Shattered Mind" and > > > > >> "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. > > > > >> Remember the main > > > > >> criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human > > > > >> Conflicts" was always that > > > > >> it was too quantitative. > > > > >> > > > > >> There are, of course, some areas of psychology that > > > > >> are well studied as > > > > >> case histories. Recently, I've been looking into > > > > >> suicidology, and in > > > > >> particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered > > > > >> the linguistic > > > > >> analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have > > > > >> been influenced, as > > > > >> early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work > > > > >> on schizophrinia). > > > > >> Now you would think that if ever there was a field > > > > >> that would benefit from > > > > >> total immersion in the individual case, this is one. > > > > >> But Shneidman says > > > > >> that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal > > > > >> phrases, and as a > > > > >> consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively > > > > >> (one of his first > > > > >> studies was simply to sort a pile of real and > > > > >> imitation suicide notes and > > > > >> carefully note the criteria he had when he made > > > > >> correct judgements). And of > > > > >> course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide > > > > >> is that the individual > > > > >> case can be utterly disregarded, since the great > > > > >> variations are > > > > >> sociological and the psychological variables all seem > > > > >> trivial, transient, > > > > >> or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a > > > > >> large scale (as we must > > > > >> these days). Shneidman says he has never read a > > > > >> suicide note he would want > > > > >> to have written. > > > > >> > > > > >> David Kellogg > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden > > > > >> > > > >> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' > > > > >> style of Romantic > > > > >> > Science was his complete immersion in the individual > > > > >> case before him, and > > > > >> > development of a science of complete persons. The > > > > >> paradigm of this type of > > > > >> > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative > > > > >> Science" I suppose. The > > > > >> > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each > > > > >> case, e.g. facial > > > > >> > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a > > > > >> "covering law" for just this > > > > >> > aspect. > > > > >> > Andy > > > > >> > > > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > >> > *Andy Blunden* > > > > >> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > >> < > > > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/> > > > > >> > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Mike, > > > > >> >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that > > > > >> naysayers were cited in > > > > >> >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering > > > > >> if some of that push back > > > > >> >> was related to his practice of romantic science, > > > > >> which, if I understand > > > > >> >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in > > > > >> the phenomena of > > > > >> >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, > > > > >> for example, immersed > > > > >> >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His > > > > >> writing prefigures the cell > > > > >> >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of > > > > >> microscopes could not confirm > > > > >> >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner > > > > >> and Sacks makes me > > > > >> >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at > > > > >> issue. Different styles > > > > >> >> of research bring different construals. This may be > > > > >> the bane of > > > > >> >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really > > > > >> make Sacks less of a > > > > >> >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? > > > > >> >> Henry > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole > > > > >> > mcole@ucsd.edu > > > >> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our > > > > >> connections with Luria and > > > > >> >>> the fact that we > > > > >> >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a > > > > >> romantic science. He was a > > > > >> >>> shy > > > > >> >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, > > > > >> and the difference > > > > >> >>> between > > > > >> >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the > > > > >> interview with them that > > > > >> >>> someone > > > > >> >>> pirated on > > > > >> >>> to youtube. > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, > > > > >> engaging intellectually all > > > > >> >>> the while. > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> mike > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin > > > > >> > > > > > >> martinl@azscience.org>> > > > > >> >>> wrote: > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the > > > > >> privilege of spending an > > > > >> >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting > > > > >> Jerry Bruner and Carol > > > > >> >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in for Sylvia who > > > > >> couldn't make the dinner - it > > > > >> >>>> was > > > > >> >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you > > > > >> ever hear from Bruner? I > > > > >> >>>> wonder if he's still active. > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>> Laura > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>> Sent from my iPad > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole > > > > >> > mcole@ucsd.edu > > > >> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>> Dear Colleagues --- > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news > > > > >> that Oliver Sacks has > > > > >> >>>> succumbed to cancer. > > > > >> >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. > > > > >> >>>> mike > > > > >> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM > > > > >> >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; > > > > >> Neurologist and Author > > > > >> >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks > > > > >> >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com > > > > > > >> lchcmike@gmail.com> > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com > > > > >> > sashacole510@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > >> Oliver Sacks Dies at > > > > >> 82; Neurologist > > > > >> >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks > > > > >> >>>> < > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > > > >> a < > > > > >> > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > > > >> > > a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 > > > > >> 972441657668®i_id=0> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > > > > >> >>>> By > > > > >> >>>> GREGORY COWLES > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest > > > > >> pathways in > > > > >> >>>> best-selling > > > > >> >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife > > > > >> for a Hat,? achieving > > > > >> >>>> a > > > > >> >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. > > > > >> >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: > > > > >> http://nyti.ms/1LL040D > > > > >> >>>> < > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > > > >> a < > > > > >> > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > > > >> > > a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 > > > > >> 972441657668®i_id=0> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > > > > >> >>>> To > > > > >> >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times > > > > >> articles, subscribe today. > > > > >> >>>> See > > > > >> >>>> Subscription Options. > > > > >> >>>> < > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC > > > > >> > > IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP > > > > >> AvEGfk= > > > > >> < > > > > >> > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC > > > > >> > > IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP > > > > >> > > AvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_i > > > > >> d=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > > > > >> >>>> To > > > > >> >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add > > > > >> nytdirect@nytimes.com > > > > >> nytdirect@nytimes.com> > > > > >> to your > > > > >> >>>> address book. Advertisement > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>> < > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto < > > > > >> > > > http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secu > > > > >> > > > re.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn > > > > >> > > 1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=Mis > > > > >> > > tressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistr > > > > >> essamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview> > > > > >> &opzn&page= > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> Copyright 2015 > > > > >> >>>> < > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP > > > > >> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ== > > > > >> < > > > > >> > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP > > > > >> > > IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31 > > > > >> > > 502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668&r > > > > >> egi_id=0> > > > > >> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcd > > > > > > > > > > > > [The entire original message is not included.] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Rafi Santo > > > Project Lead > > > Hive Research Lab > > > hiveresearchlab.org > > > A project of Indiana University and New York University > > > > > > Indiana University - Learning Sciences > > > > > > > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Sep 2 18:10:26 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 18:10:26 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: References: <55E37E99.000004FA@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <12553216-10FA-4C70-8D8F-097266281640@gmail.com> <55E4EF7C.7090500@mira.net> <55E526CC.6080400@mira.net> <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC311027525EA@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> <55E5C259.9060101@mira.net> <000f01d0e4de$fb40b960$f1c22c20$@att.net> <001701d0e4e7$ad752be0$085f83a0$@att.net> <002501d0e58e$ee919760$cbb4c620$@att.net> <55E710F5.2020903@mira.net> <55e71f73.e5de440a.d8ee8.ffffc165@mx.google.com> Message-ID: I am unclear about what you think my belief in the matter, David. I view Romantic science as a way to achieve a goal Luria had from the beginning-- the division between the nomothetic and idiographic. Particularly in the case of the man with the back of his head shot off, he was able to combine the two forms of science. People are so fixated on the fact that he wrote about the case so well that they forget he was trying to do generalizing science AND lived experience. Me too. Here is a recent brief essay I wrote about my current understandings of what I have been doing in this regard for some sort of publication of the National Academy of Education. Maybe its all confusion. But I find it satisfying. mike On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:20 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > I think it's the eternal problem, Mike: how do we relate the instance to > the type? The usual solution is something like a division of labor: > clinical versus theoretical. If you are doing clinical work, you start with > the instance and if it doesn't relate to the type then we have to turn our > backs on the type and treat the instance (e.g. when Sacks' cancer doesn't > relate to the generalization that eye cancers do not normally metastasize > to the liver). If you are a theoretician, like the gentleman urging us all > to "fuck nuance", then you turn your back on the instance and consider an > ideal type, or better yet, the system as a whole (e.g. when Durkheim said > that the particular reasons for killing yourself that we find in suicide > notes are utterly irrelevant and he approved when the British government > started to just bag and bin them). > > I don't think that either Luria or Vygotsky fits into either category.They > were both both theorizing clinicians and clinical theorists. Even in his > case studies, Luria's interest was always in the "extreme type". And > Vygotsky, who certainly believed in the "experimentum crucis", had a > penchant for making the gendankenexperiment into a real experiment. Here > too, though, there is a limit. I think the study of language development > simply cannot use either the extreme type or the gedankexperiment, Language > is just too sensitive to human self consciousness. In no other science is > it permissible to fabricate data--do linguists get an exception just > because its so much easier and therefore more of a tradition? I think > not--and so I think that linguists like Langacker who don't use real data > will inevitably get left out of a truly structural-functional-genetic > approach. > > David Kellogg > > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 8:14 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > I am having a lot of difficulty of relating the recent discussion to the > > work of either ARL or Oliver. > > mike > > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 3:41 PM, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > > I wasn't really critiquing the two-by-two matrix: actually, I think > that > > > such matrices are in fact composed of clines, although we tend not to > use > > > them that way. After thirty years of teaching, I find that I have > myself > > > have become an example person, and it's almost impossible for me to > grasp > > > "Romantic Science" as a concept or even as a diagramme without > examples; > > > being a linguist, the examples that come naturally to me are languages. > > > > > > There is a problem with my example that won't fit in the matrix, > though. > > > Let us consider a language as a bounded historical entity (Neanderthal, > > or > > > we can use English, but it will help if we take a point of view very > far > > in > > > the future, when English has become a dead language, preferably through > > the > > > wholesale extinction of our species, because otherwise we can say, as > > some > > > linguists do say, that no language ever really dies--it just changes > into > > > another language). The language system as a whole is essentially the > same > > > as the set of all utterances ever made or written in that language. > > Because > > > the language is dead, no other utterances are possible--nobody will say > > > them, and nobody can relate them to any context. In this situation, the > > > cline of instantiation and the cline of abstraction (which is really > the > > > cline of potential versus real) must join, and that means that lines > that > > > were supposedly perpendicular turn out to be parallel. > > > > > > I found the paper on nuance extremely puzzling, precisely because of > the > > > lack of examples, so I read it as an attack on conversation analysis. > > Then > > > it made perfect sense. But I found the references to "making love" in > the > > > description of peasant marriages rather curious, given the title of the > > > paper. So now the word "fuck" is used in academic discourse, to talk > > about > > > French peasants making love....it kind of leaves skidmarks on brain, > > > somehow. > > > > > > I once met a doctor in Sudan studying diarrhea. In the course of the > > > evening,he managed to make his study, and even its subject matter, > truly > > > fascinating; we could hardly wait till morning to see if we could find > > > samples of some of the things he was talking about. Similarly, one of > the > > > first linguistics papers I ever read, by my old professor James > McCawley > > at > > > University of Chicago, was all about why you can say > "fan-fucking-tastic" > > > and but you cannot say "fantas-fucking-tic"; I remember the paper well, > > and > > > later I used it to analyze a song from "My Fair Lady" > > > ("Abso-blooming-lutely still" in "Wouldn't it lov-er-ly?"). > > > > > > I'm not arguing that we can or even should abolish the euphemism > > > treadmills; we can't. Paul recently sent around a call for papers for > > > something called "The Journal of Negro Education", and I did a double > > take > > > until I realized it was the journal of W.E.B. Dubois. This summer, I > > > learned that in South Africa "black" is perjorative, and "colored" is > > used > > > self-descriptively; in America (I think) it's the other way around. > But a > > > sociologist should probably be aware that the word "fuck" has actually > > NOT > > > lost all semantic content: if it had it would not be the staple of > > > rape-friendly discourses like pop music and hip-hop. Or is that just > > > nuance? > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Rafi Santo wrote: > > > > > > > Pardon the tangent, but I couldn't help but posting this recent paper > > > that > > > > was presented last month at the ASA: > > > > http://kieranhealy.org/files/papers/fuck-nuance.pdf > > > > > > > > Aside from having a catchy title, it's pretty relevant to this > > > discussion. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Lplarry > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I hope I am not going off on a tangent. The concept "morphic" and > > the > > > > > notion that the four approach's are equally valid but express > > > different > > > > > aspects of THE RELATION. > > > > > The notion of difference/relation as a unity and each difference is > > > > > equally valid but expressing a different "character" within the > > > relation > > > > > (as a unity) > > > > > Not abstracted or reduced aspects but "morphic" aspects?. > > > > > If this is too idio just ignore my question. It is coming from left > > > > field. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: "Andy Blunden" > > > > > Sent: ?2015-?09-?02 8:10 AM > > > > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > > > > > > So this is a diagnostic tool, Peg? > > > > > Could you spell this out a little more for someone who still > > > > > doesn't grasp what you are talking about? :) > > > > > andy > > > > > intrigued. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > On 3/09/2015 12:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > > > > > > What I did not make clear is that the JoHari window is not really > > the > > > > > same as a matrix. It is a different kind of tool than I think > David > > > and > > > > > Peter are thinking about. > > > > > > Here's the trick: You change the pane sizes to emphasize the one > of > > > the > > > > > four panes you are currently acting on -- but all four panes are > > always > > > > > there. > > > > > > So you can make the "concrete specific" pane HUGE by moving the > top > > > > > bottom inner divider far to the right and moving the left right > inner > > > > > divider far to the bottom. Or you can move only one of the > > dividers. > > > > > And you can move the dividers without such extremes. > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if a diagnosis/treatment only does the first move I > described, > > > > > there's little abstract involved. I don't mind that so much if the > > > > actors > > > > > are involved in an emergency triage activity, but without the > > abstract > > > > you > > > > > are going on observables very influenced by perceptual and cultural > > > > access > > > > > of the actors and you might not even have the most useful template > > from > > > > the > > > > > general to guide/evaluate your trials and errors. So you'd better > > > shift > > > > > the panes pretty soon before things get way off base. > > > > > > > > > > > > You can also fool around with the arrangement of the terms that > > name > > > > the > > > > > panes: Do you get more out of concrete vs. specific or more out of > > > > > specific vs. concrete (in David's terms the anchors for the cline). > > > Same > > > > > for abstract vs. concrete or concrete vs. abstract. > > > > > > PG > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu > [mailto: > > > > > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of > > Peg > > > > > Griffin > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:55 PM > > > > > > To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as I understand those terms (nomothetic and idiographic), > > the > > > > > combined motor method does unite them and so arrives at dual > > > stimulation, > > > > > given the non-accidental mosaic. > > > > > > But I don't know that my understanding goes far enough or too > far! > > > > > > Peg > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu > [mailto: > > > > > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of > > mike > > > > > cole > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:08 PM > > > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > > > > > > > > Is that simultaneously uniting the nomothetic and idiographic, > Peg? > > > > That > > > > > is the way Luria talked about it. > > > > > > mike > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Peg Griffin < > Peg.Griffin@att.net> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Just in a short-hand: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Concrete Specific: Zasetsky (The man with the shattered world) > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Concrete General: People with traumatic brain injury during WWII > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Abstract General: Brain is a mosaic of specific domains with > > actions > > > > > >> that interact in dual stimulations (not pure will) > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Abstract Specific: A man acts to recall using images; it fails > > on a > > > > > >> certain target. The man starts appears to abandon the recall by > > > > > >> acting an intimately related system ? e.g., reciting the > alphabet. > > > > > >> But the recital is ?interrupted? when it bumps into the original > > > > > >> recall target and the recall is successful. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> For diagnosis and/or treatment, we must rise to the concrete > > > specific. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Sorry I don?t have time to develop this further but I am sure > many > > > on > > > > > >> this list do, and I know that Luria and Sacks did so in wondrous > > and > > > > > >> glorious instances. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Peg > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net] > > > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:21 AM > > > > > >> To: Peg Griffin; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > > > > > >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Could you give an example, Peg? > > > > > >> andy > > > > > >> > > > > > >> _____ > > > > > >> > > > > > >> *Andy Blunden* > > > > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and > > Sachs > > > ? > > > > > >> with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made > > > (based > > > > > >> on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and > Harrington > > > > > >> Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill in each > of > > > the > > > > > four cells in > > > > > >> the square about an issue of interest. It helps me think about > > > > > >> genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. > > > > > >> Concrete Abstract > > > > > >> Specific > > > > > >> General > > > > > >> > > > > > >> A romantic square, > > > > > >> Peg > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu > > [mailto: > > > > > >> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf > Of > > > Rod > > > > > >> Parker-Rees > > > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM > > > > > >> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Thanks for posting this, Andy. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his > > > > > >> reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his > > observation > > > > > >> that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event > > isolated > > > > > >> from other things or events. Its real object is to see and > > > understand > > > > > >> the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or > > > less) > > > > > >> on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but > our > > > > > >> communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using > > these > > > > > >> categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of > > > science > > > > > >> but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use of > > > > > >> language and more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The > > > > > >> romantic focus on an 'individual' can only ever be conducted in > > the > > > > > >> medium of a very un-individual language and no person's life > could > > > > > >> possibly be understood without reference to relationships with > > other > > > > > >> persons which then spread roots and branches out to a forest of > > > > > connections, causes and consequences. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of > > theory > > > if > > > > > >> one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case > and > > > > > >> Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the > > > > > >> concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but > > the > > > > > >> creative sources of great historical events and the important > > ideas > > > > > >> and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the > > > contribution > > > > > >> individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than > > > themselves > > > > > >> but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want neither to > > > split > > > > > >> living reality into its elementary components nor to represent > the > > > > > >> wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that lose > the > > > > > properties of the phenomena themselves'. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is > > > > > >> particularly interesting because it may reveal something about > how > > > all > > > > > >> minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been > 'set' > > > > > >> lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory > > > > > >> associations which words bring with them in a way which, for > most > > of > > > > > >> us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a > > > > > >> particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that > every > > > > > >> person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, > > > > > >> behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface > of a > > > > > >> pool of connections and associations which can never be shared > > with > > > or > > > > > >> known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can > > only > > > > > >> go so far in understanding another person's understanding and > much > > > > > >> less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone > > is a > > > > > >> very different thing from being able to share that knowledge in > a > > > > > >> rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of > the > > > > > >> spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge > is > > > > > >> entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that > > swirl > > > > > beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in > what > > > lies > > > > > >> beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young > > children > > > > > >> are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so > > > powerfully > > > > > >> dominated by abstractions. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> All the best, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Rod > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees= > > > plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees= > > > > plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > >> ] > > > > > >> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > > > > > >> Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 > > > > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Try this, in Word this time. > > > > > >> Andy > > > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > >> *Andy Blunden* > > > > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > >> On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post > the > > > > > >> chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which > MUST > > be > > > > > >> somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas > > > seems > > > > > >> appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended > > > essay's > > > > > >> on his view of Romantic Science. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, > > > were > > > > > >> not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of > > their > > > > > >> enterprise encompassed those fields and more. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual > > case > > > in > > > > > >> no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their > > work. > > > > > >> Nor does Luria argue so. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> mike > > > > > >> ? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg < > > > dkellogg60@gmail.com > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I think the problem with this view of romantic science > > > > > >> is that it > > > > > >> completely precludes building a psychology on a > > > > > >> sociology. In that sense > > > > > >> (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist > > > > > >> at all. Vygotsky > > > > > >> certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the > > > > > >> individual case"; such > > > > > >> an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of > > > > > >> theory. I'm not sure > > > > > >> Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a > > > > > >> Shattered Mind" and > > > > > >> "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. > > > > > >> Remember the main > > > > > >> criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human > > > > > >> Conflicts" was always that > > > > > >> it was too quantitative. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> There are, of course, some areas of psychology that > > > > > >> are well studied as > > > > > >> case histories. Recently, I've been looking into > > > > > >> suicidology, and in > > > > > >> particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered > > > > > >> the linguistic > > > > > >> analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have > > > > > >> been influenced, as > > > > > >> early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work > > > > > >> on schizophrinia). > > > > > >> Now you would think that if ever there was a field > > > > > >> that would benefit from > > > > > >> total immersion in the individual case, this is one. > > > > > >> But Shneidman says > > > > > >> that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal > > > > > >> phrases, and as a > > > > > >> consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively > > > > > >> (one of his first > > > > > >> studies was simply to sort a pile of real and > > > > > >> imitation suicide notes and > > > > > >> carefully note the criteria he had when he made > > > > > >> correct judgements). And of > > > > > >> course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide > > > > > >> is that the individual > > > > > >> case can be utterly disregarded, since the great > > > > > >> variations are > > > > > >> sociological and the psychological variables all seem > > > > > >> trivial, transient, > > > > > >> or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a > > > > > >> large scale (as we must > > > > > >> these days). Shneidman says he has never read a > > > > > >> suicide note he would want > > > > > >> to have written. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> David Kellogg > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden > > > > > >> > > > > >> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' > > > > > >> style of Romantic > > > > > >> > Science was his complete immersion in the individual > > > > > >> case before him, and > > > > > >> > development of a science of complete persons. The > > > > > >> paradigm of this type of > > > > > >> > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative > > > > > >> Science" I suppose. The > > > > > >> > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each > > > > > >> case, e.g. facial > > > > > >> > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a > > > > > >> "covering law" for just this > > > > > >> > aspect. > > > > > >> > Andy > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > >> > *Andy Blunden* > > > > > >> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > >> < > > > > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/> > > > > > >> > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> Mike, > > > > > >> >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that > > > > > >> naysayers were cited in > > > > > >> >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering > > > > > >> if some of that push back > > > > > >> >> was related to his practice of romantic science, > > > > > >> which, if I understand > > > > > >> >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in > > > > > >> the phenomena of > > > > > >> >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, > > > > > >> for example, immersed > > > > > >> >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His > > > > > >> writing prefigures the cell > > > > > >> >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of > > > > > >> microscopes could not confirm > > > > > >> >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner > > > > > >> and Sacks makes me > > > > > >> >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at > > > > > >> issue. Different styles > > > > > >> >> of research bring different construals. This may be > > > > > >> the bane of > > > > > >> >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really > > > > > >> make Sacks less of a > > > > > >> >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? > > > > > >> >> Henry > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole > > > > > >> > > mcole@ucsd.edu > > > > >> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our > > > > > >> connections with Luria and > > > > > >> >>> the fact that we > > > > > >> >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a > > > > > >> romantic science. He was a > > > > > >> >>> shy > > > > > >> >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, > > > > > >> and the difference > > > > > >> >>> between > > > > > >> >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the > > > > > >> interview with them that > > > > > >> >>> someone > > > > > >> >>> pirated on > > > > > >> >>> to youtube. > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, > > > > > >> engaging intellectually all > > > > > >> >>> the while. > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> mike > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> martinl@azscience.org>> > > > > > >> >>> wrote: > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the > > > > > >> privilege of spending an > > > > > >> >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting > > > > > >> Jerry Bruner and Carol > > > > > >> >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in for Sylvia who > > > > > >> couldn't make the dinner - it > > > > > >> >>>> was > > > > > >> >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you > > > > > >> ever hear from Bruner? I > > > > > >> >>>> wonder if he's still active. > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> Laura > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> Sent from my iPad > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole > > > > > >> > > mcole@ucsd.edu > > > > >> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> Dear Colleagues --- > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news > > > > > >> that Oliver Sacks has > > > > > >> >>>> succumbed to cancer. > > > > > >> >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. > > > > > >> >>>> mike > > > > > >> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM > > > > > >> >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; > > > > > >> Neurologist and Author > > > > > >> >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks > > > > > >> >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com > > > > > > > > >> lchcmike@gmail.com> > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com > > > > > >> > > sashacole510@gmail.com > > > > >: > > > > > >> Oliver Sacks Dies at > > > > > >> 82; Neurologist > > > > > >> >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks > > > > > >> >>>> < > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > > > > >> a < > > > > > >> > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > > > > >> > > > a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 > > > > > >> 972441657668®i_id=0> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > > > > > >> >>>> By > > > > > >> >>>> GREGORY COWLES > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest > > > > > >> pathways in > > > > > >> >>>> best-selling > > > > > >> >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife > > > > > >> for a Hat,? achieving > > > > > >> >>>> a > > > > > >> >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. > > > > > >> >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: > > > > > >> http://nyti.ms/1LL040D > > > > > >> >>>> < > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > > > > >> a < > > > > > >> > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > > > > >> > > > a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 > > > > > >> 972441657668®i_id=0> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > > > > > >> >>>> To > > > > > >> >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times > > > > > >> articles, subscribe today. > > > > > >> >>>> See > > > > > >> >>>> Subscription Options. > > > > > >> >>>> < > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC > > > > > >> > > > IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP > > > > > >> AvEGfk= > > > > > >> < > > > > > >> > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC > > > > > >> > > > IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP > > > > > >> > > > AvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_i > > > > > >> d=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > > > > > >> >>>> To > > > > > >> >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add > > > > > >> nytdirect@nytimes.com > > > > > > >> nytdirect@nytimes.com> > > > > > >> to your > > > > > >> >>>> address book. Advertisement > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> < > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto < > > > > > >> > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secu > > > > > >> > > > > > re.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn > > > > > >> > > > 1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=Mis > > > > > >> > > > tressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistr > > > > > >> essamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview> > > > > > >> &opzn&page= > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > > >> >>>> Copyright 2015 > > > > > >> >>>> < > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP > > > > > >> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ== > > > > > >> < > > > > > >> > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP > > > > > >> > > > IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31 > > > > > >> > > > 502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668&r > > > > > >> egi_id=0> > > > > > >> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcd > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [The entire original message is not included.] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Rafi Santo > > > > Project Lead > > > > Hive Research Lab > > > > hiveresearchlab.org > > > > A project of Indiana University and New York University > > > > > > > > Indiana University - Learning Sciences > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NAED.hooked.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 15310 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150902/3cf2175b/attachment.pdf From lpscholar2@gmail.com Wed Sep 2 19:40:19 2015 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 02:40:19 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?q?Oliver_Sacks/Romantic_Science?= In-Reply-To: References: <55E37E99.000004FA@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <12553216-10FA-4C70-8D8F-097266281640@gmail.com> <55E4EF7C.7090500@mira.net> <55E526CC.6080400@mira.net> <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC311027525EA@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> <55E5C259.9060101@mira.net> <000f01d0e4de$fb40b960$f1c22c20$@att.net> <001701d0e4e7$ad752be0$085f83a0$@att.net> <002501d0e58e$ee919760$cbb4c620$@att.net> <55E710F5.2020903@mira.net> <55e71f73.e5de440a.d8ee8.ffffc165@mx.google.com> , Message-ID: <55e7b875.a2eb420a.8c6b9.1611@mx.google.com> Mike, the second to last paragraph references ?reflexivity? that results from ?participating? within ?designed? processes. returning to Dewey and his notion of ?undergoing? an experience, there seems to be an analogy of reflecting from ?within? the experiences as a participant. is this contrasted with the notion of having a "reference POINT? as a place from which to connect up with other "reference points/stances.?. in other words are ?gestures? ways of connecting in a point to point procedure seen through the "eye/I? or can "gestures? be imagined more as "resonating immersive experiences? undergone through the "ear?. luria being both novelist and scientist is gesturing towards the same question. larry Sent from Windows Mail From: mike cole Sent: ?Wednesday?, ?September? ?2?, ?2015 ?6?:?10? ?PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity I am unclear about what you think my belief in the matter, David. I view Romantic science as a way to achieve a goal Luria had from the beginning-- the division between the nomothetic and idiographic. Particularly in the case of the man with the back of his head shot off, he was able to combine the two forms of science. People are so fixated on the fact that he wrote about the case so well that they forget he was trying to do generalizing science AND lived experience. Me too. Here is a recent brief essay I wrote about my current understandings of what I have been doing in this regard for some sort of publication of the National Academy of Education. Maybe its all confusion. But I find it satisfying. mike On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:20 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > I think it's the eternal problem, Mike: how do we relate the instance to > the type? The usual solution is something like a division of labor: > clinical versus theoretical. If you are doing clinical work, you start with > the instance and if it doesn't relate to the type then we have to turn our > backs on the type and treat the instance (e.g. when Sacks' cancer doesn't > relate to the generalization that eye cancers do not normally metastasize > to the liver). If you are a theoretician, like the gentleman urging us all > to "fuck nuance", then you turn your back on the instance and consider an > ideal type, or better yet, the system as a whole (e.g. when Durkheim said > that the particular reasons for killing yourself that we find in suicide > notes are utterly irrelevant and he approved when the British government > started to just bag and bin them). > > I don't think that either Luria or Vygotsky fits into either category.They > were both both theorizing clinicians and clinical theorists. Even in his > case studies, Luria's interest was always in the "extreme type". And > Vygotsky, who certainly believed in the "experimentum crucis", had a > penchant for making the gendankenexperiment into a real experiment. Here > too, though, there is a limit. I think the study of language development > simply cannot use either the extreme type or the gedankexperiment, Language > is just too sensitive to human self consciousness. In no other science is > it permissible to fabricate data--do linguists get an exception just > because its so much easier and therefore more of a tradition? I think > not--and so I think that linguists like Langacker who don't use real data > will inevitably get left out of a truly structural-functional-genetic > approach. > > David Kellogg > > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 8:14 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > I am having a lot of difficulty of relating the recent discussion to the > > work of either ARL or Oliver. > > mike > > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 3:41 PM, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > > I wasn't really critiquing the two-by-two matrix: actually, I think > that > > > such matrices are in fact composed of clines, although we tend not to > use > > > them that way. After thirty years of teaching, I find that I have > myself > > > have become an example person, and it's almost impossible for me to > grasp > > > "Romantic Science" as a concept or even as a diagramme without > examples; > > > being a linguist, the examples that come naturally to me are languages. > > > > > > There is a problem with my example that won't fit in the matrix, > though. > > > Let us consider a language as a bounded historical entity (Neanderthal, > > or > > > we can use English, but it will help if we take a point of view very > far > > in > > > the future, when English has become a dead language, preferably through > > the > > > wholesale extinction of our species, because otherwise we can say, as > > some > > > linguists do say, that no language ever really dies--it just changes > into > > > another language). The language system as a whole is essentially the > same > > > as the set of all utterances ever made or written in that language. > > Because > > > the language is dead, no other utterances are possible--nobody will say > > > them, and nobody can relate them to any context. In this situation, the > > > cline of instantiation and the cline of abstraction (which is really > the > > > cline of potential versus real) must join, and that means that lines > that > > > were supposedly perpendicular turn out to be parallel. > > > > > > I found the paper on nuance extremely puzzling, precisely because of > the > > > lack of examples, so I read it as an attack on conversation analysis. > > Then > > > it made perfect sense. But I found the references to "making love" in > the > > > description of peasant marriages rather curious, given the title of the > > > paper. So now the word "fuck" is used in academic discourse, to talk > > about > > > French peasants making love....it kind of leaves skidmarks on brain, > > > somehow. > > > > > > I once met a doctor in Sudan studying diarrhea. In the course of the > > > evening,he managed to make his study, and even its subject matter, > truly > > > fascinating; we could hardly wait till morning to see if we could find > > > samples of some of the things he was talking about. Similarly, one of > the > > > first linguistics papers I ever read, by my old professor James > McCawley > > at > > > University of Chicago, was all about why you can say > "fan-fucking-tastic" > > > and but you cannot say "fantas-fucking-tic"; I remember the paper well, > > and > > > later I used it to analyze a song from "My Fair Lady" > > > ("Abso-blooming-lutely still" in "Wouldn't it lov-er-ly?"). > > > > > > I'm not arguing that we can or even should abolish the euphemism > > > treadmills; we can't. Paul recently sent around a call for papers for > > > something called "The Journal of Negro Education", and I did a double > > take > > > until I realized it was the journal of W.E.B. Dubois. This summer, I > > > learned that in South Africa "black" is perjorative, and "colored" is > > used > > > self-descriptively; in America (I think) it's the other way around. > But a > > > sociologist should probably be aware that the word "fuck" has actually > > NOT > > > lost all semantic content: if it had it would not be the staple of > > > rape-friendly discourses like pop music and hip-hop. Or is that just > > > nuance? > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Rafi Santo wrote: > > > > > > > Pardon the tangent, but I couldn't help but posting this recent paper > > > that > > > > was presented last month at the ASA: > > > > http://kieranhealy.org/files/papers/fuck-nuance.pdf > > > > > > > > Aside from having a catchy title, it's pretty relevant to this > > > discussion. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Lplarry > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I hope I am not going off on a tangent. The concept "morphic" and > > the > > > > > notion that the four approach's are equally valid but express > > > different > > > > > aspects of THE RELATION. > > > > > The notion of difference/relation as a unity and each difference is > > > > > equally valid but expressing a different "character" within the > > > relation > > > > > (as a unity) > > > > > Not abstracted or reduced aspects but "morphic" aspects?. > > > > > If this is too idio just ignore my question. It is coming from left > > > > field. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: "Andy Blunden" > > > > > Sent: ?2015-?09-?02 8:10 AM > > > > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > > > > > > So this is a diagnostic tool, Peg? > > > > > Could you spell this out a little more for someone who still > > > > > doesn't grasp what you are talking about? :) > > > > > andy > > > > > intrigued. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > On 3/09/2015 12:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > > > > > > What I did not make clear is that the JoHari window is not really > > the > > > > > same as a matrix. It is a different kind of tool than I think > David > > > and > > > > > Peter are thinking about. > > > > > > Here's the trick: You change the pane sizes to emphasize the one > of > > > the > > > > > four panes you are currently acting on -- but all four panes are > > always > > > > > there. > > > > > > So you can make the "concrete specific" pane HUGE by moving the > top > > > > > bottom inner divider far to the right and moving the left right > inner > > > > > divider far to the bottom. Or you can move only one of the > > dividers. > > > > > And you can move the dividers without such extremes. > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if a diagnosis/treatment only does the first move I > described, > > > > > there's little abstract involved. I don't mind that so much if the > > > > actors > > > > > are involved in an emergency triage activity, but without the > > abstract > > > > you > > > > > are going on observables very influenced by perceptual and cultural > > > > access > > > > > of the actors and you might not even have the most useful template > > from > > > > the > > > > > general to guide/evaluate your trials and errors. So you'd better > > > shift > > > > > the panes pretty soon before things get way off base. > > > > > > > > > > > > You can also fool around with the arrangement of the terms that > > name > > > > the > > > > > panes: Do you get more out of concrete vs. specific or more out of > > > > > specific vs. concrete (in David's terms the anchors for the cline). > > > Same > > > > > for abstract vs. concrete or concrete vs. abstract. > > > > > > PG > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu > [mailto: > > > > > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of > > Peg > > > > > Griffin > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:55 PM > > > > > > To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as I understand those terms (nomothetic and idiographic), > > the > > > > > combined motor method does unite them and so arrives at dual > > > stimulation, > > > > > given the non-accidental mosaic. > > > > > > But I don't know that my understanding goes far enough or too > far! > > > > > > Peg > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu > [mailto: > > > > > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of > > mike > > > > > cole > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:08 PM > > > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > > > > > > > > Is that simultaneously uniting the nomothetic and idiographic, > Peg? > > > > That > > > > > is the way Luria talked about it. > > > > > > mike > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Peg Griffin < > Peg.Griffin@att.net> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Just in a short-hand: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Concrete Specific: Zasetsky (The man with the shattered world) > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Concrete General: People with traumatic brain injury during WWII > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Abstract General: Brain is a mosaic of specific domains with > > actions > > > > > >> that interact in dual stimulations (not pure will) > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Abstract Specific: A man acts to recall using images; it fails > > on a > > > > > >> certain target. The man starts appears to abandon the recall by > > > > > >> acting an intimately related system ? e.g., reciting the > alphabet. > > > > > >> But the recital is ?interrupted? when it bumps into the original > > > > > >> recall target and the recall is successful. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> For diagnosis and/or treatment, we must rise to the concrete > > > specific. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Sorry I don?t have time to develop this further but I am sure > many > > > on > > > > > >> this list do, and I know that Luria and Sacks did so in wondrous > > and > > > > > >> glorious instances. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Peg > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net] > > > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:21 AM > > > > > >> To: Peg Griffin; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > > > > > >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Could you give an example, Peg? > > > > > >> andy > > > > > >> > > > > > >> _____ > > > > > >> > > > > > >> *Andy Blunden* > > > > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and > > Sachs > > > ? > > > > > >> with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made > > > (based > > > > > >> on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and > Harrington > > > > > >> Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill in each > of > > > the > > > > > four cells in > > > > > >> the square about an issue of interest. It helps me think about > > > > > >> genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. > > > > > >> Concrete Abstract > > > > > >> Specific > > > > > >> General > > > > > >> > > > > > >> A romantic square, > > > > > >> Peg > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu > > [mailto: > > > > > >> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf > Of > > > Rod > > > > > >> Parker-Rees > > > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM > > > > > >> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Thanks for posting this, Andy. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his > > > > > >> reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his > > observation > > > > > >> that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event > > isolated > > > > > >> from other things or events. Its real object is to see and > > > understand > > > > > >> the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or > > > less) > > > > > >> on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but > our > > > > > >> communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using > > these > > > > > >> categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of > > > science > > > > > >> but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use of > > > > > >> language and more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The > > > > > >> romantic focus on an 'individual' can only ever be conducted in > > the > > > > > >> medium of a very un-individual language and no person's life > could > > > > > >> possibly be understood without reference to relationships with > > other > > > > > >> persons which then spread roots and branches out to a forest of > > > > > connections, causes and consequences. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of > > theory > > > if > > > > > >> one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case > and > > > > > >> Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the > > > > > >> concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but > > the > > > > > >> creative sources of great historical events and the important > > ideas > > > > > >> and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the > > > contribution > > > > > >> individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than > > > themselves > > > > > >> but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want neither to > > > split > > > > > >> living reality into its elementary components nor to represent > the > > > > > >> wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that lose > the > > > > > properties of the phenomena themselves'. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is > > > > > >> particularly interesting because it may reveal something about > how > > > all > > > > > >> minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been > 'set' > > > > > >> lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory > > > > > >> associations which words bring with them in a way which, for > most > > of > > > > > >> us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a > > > > > >> particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that > every > > > > > >> person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, > > > > > >> behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface > of a > > > > > >> pool of connections and associations which can never be shared > > with > > > or > > > > > >> known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can > > only > > > > > >> go so far in understanding another person's understanding and > much > > > > > >> less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone > > is a > > > > > >> very different thing from being able to share that knowledge in > a > > > > > >> rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of > the > > > > > >> spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge > is > > > > > >> entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that > > swirl > > > > > beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in > what > > > lies > > > > > >> beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young > > children > > > > > >> are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so > > > powerfully > > > > > >> dominated by abstractions. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> All the best, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Rod > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees= > > > plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees= > > > > plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > >> ] > > > > > >> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > > > > > >> Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 > > > > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Try this, in Word this time. > > > > > >> Andy > > > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > >> *Andy Blunden* > > > > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > >> On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post > the > > > > > >> chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which > MUST > > be > > > > > >> somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas > > > seems > > > > > >> appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended > > > essay's > > > > > >> on his view of Romantic Science. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, > > > were > > > > > >> not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of > > their > > > > > >> enterprise encompassed those fields and more. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual > > case > > > in > > > > > >> no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their > > work. > > > > > >> Nor does Luria argue so. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> mike > > > > > >> ? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg < > > > dkellogg60@gmail.com > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I think the problem with this view of romantic science > > > > > >> is that it > > > > > >> completely precludes building a psychology on a > > > > > >> sociology. In that sense > > > > > >> (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist > > > > > >> at all. Vygotsky > > > > > >> certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the > > > > > >> individual case"; such > > > > > >> an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of > > > > > >> theory. I'm not sure > > > > > >> Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a > > > > > >> Shattered Mind" and > > > > > >> "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. > > > > > >> Remember the main > > > > > >> criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human > > > > > >> Conflicts" was always that > > > > > >> it was too quantitative. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> There are, of course, some areas of psychology that > > > > > >> are well studied as > > > > > >> case histories. Recently, I've been looking into > > > > > >> suicidology, and in > > > > > >> particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered > > > > > >> the linguistic > > > > > >> analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have > > > > > >> been influenced, as > > > > > >> early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work > > > > > >> on schizophrinia). > > > > > >> Now you would think that if ever there was a field > > > > > >> that would benefit from > > > > > >> total immersion in the individual case, this is one. > > > > > >> But Shneidman says > > > > > >> that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal > > > > > >> phrases, and as a > > > > > >> consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively > > > > > >> (one of his first > > > > > >> studies was simply to sort a pile of real and > > > > > >> imitation suicide notes and > > > > > >> carefully note the criteria he had when he made > > > > > >> correct judgements). And of > > > > > >> course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide > > > > > >> is that the individual > > > > > >> case can be utterly disregarded, since the great > > > > > >> variations are > > > > > >> sociological and the psychological variables all seem > > > > > >> trivial, transient, > > > > > >> or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a > > > > > >> large scale (as we must > > > > > >> these days). Shneidman says he has never read a > > > > > >> suicide note he would want > > > > > >> to have written. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> David Kellogg > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden > > > > > >> > > > > >> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' > > > > > >> style of Romantic > > > > > >> > Science was his complete immersion in the individual > > > > > >> case before him, and > > > > > >> > development of a science of complete persons. The > > > > > >> paradigm of this type of > > > > > >> > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative > > > > > >> Science" I suppose. The > > > > > >> > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each > > > > > >> case, e.g. facial > > > > > >> > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a > > > > > >> "covering law" for just this > > > > > >> > aspect. > > > > > >> > Andy > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > >> > *Andy Blunden* > > > > > >> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > >> < > > > > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/> > > > > > >> > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> Mike, > > > > > >> >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that > > > > > >> naysayers were cited in > > > > > >> >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering > > > > > >> if some of that push back > > > > > >> >> was related to his practice of romantic science, > > > > > >> which, if I understand > > > > > >> >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in > > > > > >> the phenomena of > > > > > >> >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, > > > > > >> for example, immersed > > > > > >> >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His > > > > > >> writing prefigures the cell > > > > > >> >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of > > > > > >> microscopes could not confirm > > > > > >> >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner > > > > > >> and Sacks makes me > > > > > >> >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at > > > > > >> issue. Different styles > > > > > >> >> of research bring different construals. This may be > > > > > >> the bane of > > > > > >> >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really > > > > > >> make Sacks less of a > > > > > >> >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? > > > > > >> >> Henry > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole > > > > > >> > > mcole@ucsd.edu > > > > >> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our > > > > > >> connections with Luria and > > > > > >> >>> the fact that we > > > > > >> >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a > > > > > >> romantic science. He was a > > > > > >> >>> shy > > > > > >> >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, > > > > > >> and the difference > > > > > >> >>> between > > > > > >> >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the > > > > > >> interview with them that > > > > > >> >>> someone > > > > > >> >>> pirated on > > > > > >> >>> to youtube. > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, > > > > > >> engaging intellectually all > > > > > >> >>> the while. > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> mike > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> martinl@azscience.org>> > > > > > >> >>> wrote: > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the > > > > > >> privilege of spending an > > > > > >> >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting > > > > > >> Jerry Bruner and Carol > > > > > >> >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in for Sylvia who > > > > > >> couldn't make the dinner - it > > > > > >> >>>> was > > > > > >> >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you > > > > > >> ever hear from Bruner? I > > > > > >> >>>> wonder if he's still active. > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> Laura > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> Sent from my iPad > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole > > > > > >> > > mcole@ucsd.edu > > > > >> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> Dear Colleagues --- > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news > > > > > >> that Oliver Sacks has > > > > > >> >>>> succumbed to cancer. > > > > > >> >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. > > > > > >> >>>> mike > > > > > >> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM > > > > > >> >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; > > > > > >> Neurologist and Author > > > > > >> >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks > > > > > >> >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com > > > > > > > > >> lchcmike@gmail.com> > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com > > > > > >> > > sashacole510@gmail.com > > > > >: > > > > > >> Oliver Sacks Dies at > > > > > >> 82; Neurologist > > > > > >> >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks > > > > > >> >>>> < > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > > > > >> a < > > > > > >> > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > > > > >> > > > a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 > > > > > >> 972441657668®i_id=0> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > > > > > >> >>>> By > > > > > >> >>>> GREGORY COWLES > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest > > > > > >> pathways in > > > > > >> >>>> best-selling > > > > > >> >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife > > > > > >> for a Hat,? achieving > > > > > >> >>>> a > > > > > >> >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. > > > > > >> >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: > > > > > >> http://nyti.ms/1LL040D > > > > > >> >>>> < > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > > > > >> a < > > > > > >> > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > > > > >> > > > a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 > > > > > >> 972441657668®i_id=0> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > > > > > >> >>>> To > > > > > >> >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times > > > > > >> articles, subscribe today. > > > > > >> >>>> See > > > > > >> >>>> Subscription Options. > > > > > >> >>>> < > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC > > > > > >> > > > IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP > > > > > >> AvEGfk= > > > > > >> < > > > > > >> > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC > > > > > >> > > > IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP > > > > > >> > > > AvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_i > > > > > >> d=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > > > > > >> >>>> To > > > > > >> >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add > > > > > >> nytdirect@nytimes.com > > > > > > >> nytdirect@nytimes.com> > > > > > >> to your > > > > > >> >>>> address book. Advertisement > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> < > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto < > > > > > >> > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secu > > > > > >> > > > > > re.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn > > > > > >> > > > 1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=Mis > > > > > >> > > > tressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistr > > > > > >> essamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview> > > > > > >> &opzn&page= > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > > >> >>>> Copyright 2015 > > > > > >> >>>> < > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP > > > > > >> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ== > > > > > >> < > > > > > >> > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP > > > > > >> > > > IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31 > > > > > >> > > > 502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668&r > > > > > >> egi_id=0> > > > > > >> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcd > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [The entire original message is not included.] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Rafi Santo > > > > Project Lead > > > > Hive Research Lab > > > > hiveresearchlab.org > > > > A project of Indiana University and New York University > > > > > > > > Indiana University - Learning Sciences > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Sep 3 08:31:32 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 08:31:32 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <55e7b875.a2eb420a.8c6b9.1611@mx.google.com> References: <55E37E99.000004FA@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <12553216-10FA-4C70-8D8F-097266281640@gmail.com> <55E4EF7C.7090500@mira.net> <55E526CC.6080400@mira.net> <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC311027525EA@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> <55E5C259.9060101@mira.net> <000f01d0e4de$fb40b960$f1c22c20$@att.net> <001701d0e4e7$ad752be0$085f83a0$@att.net> <002501d0e58e$ee919760$cbb4c620$@att.net> <55E710F5.2020903@mira.net> <55e71f73.e5de440a.d8ee8.ffffc165@mx.google.com> <55e7b875.a2eb420a.8c6b9.1611@mx.google.com> Message-ID: I don't entirely follow the last part of your note re my short piece summarizing my take on romantic science, Larry. I had not made that particular connection to Dewey, but it seems appropriate. Experiencing the process one seeks to impose on others seems one important in the kind of work I was doing. Your suggestion about the person involvement of the practice being "contrasted with the notion of having a "reference POINT? as a place from which to connect up with other "reference points/stances? I interpret as a rephrasing of an attempt to put the idiographic and nomothetic in dialogue with each other as a part of the process of research. I believe that is what my take on Romantic Science seeks to do, with whatever degree of success. mike On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:40 PM, wrote: > Mike, > > the second to last paragraph references ?reflexivity? that results from > ?participating? within ?designed? processes. > > returning to Dewey and his notion of ?undergoing? an experience, there > seems to be an analogy of reflecting from ?within? the experiences as a > participant. > > is this contrasted with the notion of having a "reference POINT? as a > place from which to connect up with other "reference points/stances.?. > > in other words are ?gestures? ways of connecting in a point to point > procedure seen through the "eye/I? or can "gestures? be imagined more as > "resonating immersive experiences? undergone through the "ear?. > > luria being both novelist and scientist is gesturing towards the same > question. > > larry > > > > > > > Sent from Windows Mail > > > > > > From: mike cole > Sent: ?Wednesday?, ?September? ?2?, ?2015 ?6?:?10? ?PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > > > I am unclear about what you think my belief in the matter, David. I view > Romantic science as a way to achieve a goal Luria had from the beginning-- > the division between the nomothetic and idiographic. Particularly in the > case of the man with the back of his head shot off, he was able to combine > the two forms of science. People are so fixated on the fact that he wrote > about the case so well that they forget he was trying to do generalizing > science AND lived experience. Me too. > > Here is a recent brief essay I wrote about my current understandings of > what I have been doing in this regard for some sort of publication of the > National Academy of Education. > > Maybe its all confusion. But I find it satisfying. > mike > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:20 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > I think it's the eternal problem, Mike: how do we relate the instance to > > the type? The usual solution is something like a division of labor: > > clinical versus theoretical. If you are doing clinical work, you start > with > > the instance and if it doesn't relate to the type then we have to turn > our > > backs on the type and treat the instance (e.g. when Sacks' cancer > doesn't > > relate to the generalization that eye cancers do not normally metastasize > > to the liver). If you are a theoretician, like the gentleman urging us > all > > to "fuck nuance", then you turn your back on the instance and consider an > > ideal type, or better yet, the system as a whole (e.g. when Durkheim said > > that the particular reasons for killing yourself that we find in suicide > > notes are utterly irrelevant and he approved when the British government > > started to just bag and bin them). > > > > I don't think that either Luria or Vygotsky fits into either > category.They > > were both both theorizing clinicians and clinical theorists. Even in his > > case studies, Luria's interest was always in the "extreme type". And > > Vygotsky, who certainly believed in the "experimentum crucis", had a > > penchant for making the gendankenexperiment into a real experiment. Here > > too, though, there is a limit. I think the study of language development > > simply cannot use either the extreme type or the gedankexperiment, > Language > > is just too sensitive to human self consciousness. In no other science is > > it permissible to fabricate data--do linguists get an exception just > > because its so much easier and therefore more of a tradition? I think > > not--and so I think that linguists like Langacker who don't use real data > > will inevitably get left out of a truly structural-functional-genetic > > approach. > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 8:14 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > > > I am having a lot of difficulty of relating the recent discussion to > the > > > work of either ARL or Oliver. > > > mike > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 3:41 PM, David Kellogg > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I wasn't really critiquing the two-by-two matrix: actually, I think > > that > > > > such matrices are in fact composed of clines, although we tend not to > > use > > > > them that way. After thirty years of teaching, I find that I have > > myself > > > > have become an example person, and it's almost impossible for me to > > grasp > > > > "Romantic Science" as a concept or even as a diagramme without > > examples; > > > > being a linguist, the examples that come naturally to me are > languages. > > > > > > > > There is a problem with my example that won't fit in the matrix, > > though. > > > > Let us consider a language as a bounded historical entity > (Neanderthal, > > > or > > > > we can use English, but it will help if we take a point of view very > > far > > > in > > > > the future, when English has become a dead language, preferably > through > > > the > > > > wholesale extinction of our species, because otherwise we can say, as > > > some > > > > linguists do say, that no language ever really dies--it just changes > > into > > > > another language). The language system as a whole is essentially the > > same > > > > as the set of all utterances ever made or written in that language. > > > Because > > > > the language is dead, no other utterances are possible--nobody will > say > > > > them, and nobody can relate them to any context. In this situation, > the > > > > cline of instantiation and the cline of abstraction (which is really > > the > > > > cline of potential versus real) must join, and that means that lines > > that > > > > were supposedly perpendicular turn out to be parallel. > > > > > > > > I found the paper on nuance extremely puzzling, precisely because of > > the > > > > lack of examples, so I read it as an attack on conversation analysis. > > > Then > > > > it made perfect sense. But I found the references to "making love" in > > the > > > > description of peasant marriages rather curious, given the title of > the > > > > paper. So now the word "fuck" is used in academic discourse, to talk > > > about > > > > French peasants making love....it kind of leaves skidmarks on brain, > > > > somehow. > > > > > > > > I once met a doctor in Sudan studying diarrhea. In the course of the > > > > evening,he managed to make his study, and even its subject matter, > > truly > > > > fascinating; we could hardly wait till morning to see if we could > find > > > > samples of some of the things he was talking about. Similarly, one of > > the > > > > first linguistics papers I ever read, by my old professor James > > McCawley > > > at > > > > University of Chicago, was all about why you can say > > "fan-fucking-tastic" > > > > and but you cannot say "fantas-fucking-tic"; I remember the paper > well, > > > and > > > > later I used it to analyze a song from "My Fair Lady" > > > > ("Abso-blooming-lutely still" in "Wouldn't it lov-er-ly?"). > > > > > > > > I'm not arguing that we can or even should abolish the euphemism > > > > treadmills; we can't. Paul recently sent around a call for papers for > > > > something called "The Journal of Negro Education", and I did a double > > > take > > > > until I realized it was the journal of W.E.B. Dubois. This summer, I > > > > learned that in South Africa "black" is perjorative, and "colored" is > > > used > > > > self-descriptively; in America (I think) it's the other way around. > > But a > > > > sociologist should probably be aware that the word "fuck" has > actually > > > NOT > > > > lost all semantic content: if it had it would not be the staple of > > > > rape-friendly discourses like pop music and hip-hop. Or is that just > > > > nuance? > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Rafi Santo > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Pardon the tangent, but I couldn't help but posting this recent > paper > > > > that > > > > > was presented last month at the ASA: > > > > > http://kieranhealy.org/files/papers/fuck-nuance.pdf > > > > > > > > > > Aside from having a catchy title, it's pretty relevant to this > > > > discussion. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Lplarry > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I hope I am not going off on a tangent. The concept "morphic" > and > > > the > > > > > > notion that the four approach's are equally valid but express > > > > different > > > > > > aspects of THE RELATION. > > > > > > The notion of difference/relation as a unity and each difference > is > > > > > > equally valid but expressing a different "character" within the > > > > relation > > > > > > (as a unity) > > > > > > Not abstracted or reduced aspects but "morphic" aspects?. > > > > > > If this is too idio just ignore my question. It is coming from > left > > > > > field. > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: "Andy Blunden" > > > > > > Sent: ?2015-?09-?02 8:10 AM > > > > > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > > > > > > > > So this is a diagnostic tool, Peg? > > > > > > Could you spell this out a little more for someone who still > > > > > > doesn't grasp what you are talking about? :) > > > > > > andy > > > > > > intrigued. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > > On 3/09/2015 12:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > > > > > > > What I did not make clear is that the JoHari window is not > really > > > the > > > > > > same as a matrix. It is a different kind of tool than I think > > David > > > > and > > > > > > Peter are thinking about. > > > > > > > Here's the trick: You change the pane sizes to emphasize the > one > > of > > > > the > > > > > > four panes you are currently acting on -- but all four panes are > > > always > > > > > > there. > > > > > > > So you can make the "concrete specific" pane HUGE by moving the > > top > > > > > > bottom inner divider far to the right and moving the left right > > inner > > > > > > divider far to the bottom. Or you can move only one of the > > > dividers. > > > > > > And you can move the dividers without such extremes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if a diagnosis/treatment only does the first move I > > described, > > > > > > there's little abstract involved. I don't mind that so much if > the > > > > > actors > > > > > > are involved in an emergency triage activity, but without the > > > abstract > > > > > you > > > > > > are going on observables very influenced by perceptual and > cultural > > > > > access > > > > > > of the actors and you might not even have the most useful > template > > > from > > > > > the > > > > > > general to guide/evaluate your trials and errors. So you'd > better > > > > shift > > > > > > the panes pretty soon before things get way off base. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can also fool around with the arrangement of the terms that > > > name > > > > > the > > > > > > panes: Do you get more out of concrete vs. specific or more out > of > > > > > > specific vs. concrete (in David's terms the anchors for the > cline). > > > > Same > > > > > > for abstract vs. concrete or concrete vs. abstract. > > > > > > > PG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu > > [mailto: > > > > > > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf > Of > > > Peg > > > > > > Griffin > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:55 PM > > > > > > > To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > > > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as I understand those terms (nomothetic and > idiographic), > > > the > > > > > > combined motor method does unite them and so arrives at dual > > > > stimulation, > > > > > > given the non-accidental mosaic. > > > > > > > But I don't know that my understanding goes far enough or too > > far! > > > > > > > Peg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu > > [mailto: > > > > > > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf > Of > > > mike > > > > > > cole > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:08 PM > > > > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is that simultaneously uniting the nomothetic and idiographic, > > Peg? > > > > > That > > > > > > is the way Luria talked about it. > > > > > > > mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Peg Griffin < > > Peg.Griffin@att.net> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Just in a short-hand: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Concrete Specific: Zasetsky (The man with the shattered > world) > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Concrete General: People with traumatic brain injury during > WWII > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Abstract General: Brain is a mosaic of specific domains with > > > actions > > > > > > >> that interact in dual stimulations (not pure will) > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Abstract Specific: A man acts to recall using images; it > fails > > > on a > > > > > > >> certain target. The man starts appears to abandon the recall > by > > > > > > >> acting an intimately related system ? e.g., reciting the > > alphabet. > > > > > > >> But the recital is ?interrupted? when it bumps into the > original > > > > > > >> recall target and the recall is successful. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> For diagnosis and/or treatment, we must rise to the concrete > > > > specific. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Sorry I don?t have time to develop this further but I am sure > > many > > > > on > > > > > > >> this list do, and I know that Luria and Sacks did so in > wondrous > > > and > > > > > > >> glorious instances. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Peg > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net] > > > > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:21 AM > > > > > > >> To: Peg Griffin; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > > > > > > >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Could you give an example, Peg? > > > > > > >> andy > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> _____ > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> *Andy Blunden* > > > > > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and > > > Sachs > > > > ? > > > > > > >> with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made > > > > (based > > > > > > >> on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and > > Harrington > > > > > > >> Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill in > each > > of > > > > the > > > > > > four cells in > > > > > > >> the square about an issue of interest. It helps me think > about > > > > > > >> genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. > > > > > > >> Concrete Abstract > > > > > > >> Specific > > > > > > >> General > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> A romantic square, > > > > > > >> Peg > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > [mailto: > > > > > > >> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On > Behalf > > Of > > > > Rod > > > > > > >> Parker-Rees > > > > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM > > > > > > >> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Thanks for posting this, Andy. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of > his > > > > > > >> reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his > > > observation > > > > > > >> that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event > > > isolated > > > > > > >> from other things or events. Its real object is to see and > > > > understand > > > > > > >> the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more > or > > > > less) > > > > > > >> on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but > > our > > > > > > >> communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using > > > these > > > > > > >> categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of > > > > science > > > > > > >> but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use > of > > > > > > >> language and more routine, formulaic forms of communication. > The > > > > > > >> romantic focus on an 'individual' can only ever be conducted > in > > > the > > > > > > >> medium of a very un-individual language and no person's life > > could > > > > > > >> possibly be understood without reference to relationships with > > > other > > > > > > >> persons which then spread roots and branches out to a forest > of > > > > > > connections, causes and consequences. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of > > > theory > > > > if > > > > > > >> one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case > > and > > > > > > >> Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the > > > > > > >> concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, > but > > > the > > > > > > >> creative sources of great historical events and the important > > > ideas > > > > > > >> and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the > > > > contribution > > > > > > >> individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than > > > > themselves > > > > > > >> but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want neither > to > > > > split > > > > > > >> living reality into its elementary components nor to represent > > the > > > > > > >> wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that lose > > the > > > > > > properties of the phenomena themselves'. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is > > > > > > >> particularly interesting because it may reveal something about > > how > > > > all > > > > > > >> minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been > > 'set' > > > > > > >> lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory > > > > > > >> associations which words bring with them in a way which, for > > most > > > of > > > > > > >> us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a > > > > > > >> particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that > > every > > > > > > >> person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, > > > > > > >> behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface > > of a > > > > > > >> pool of connections and associations which can never be shared > > > with > > > > or > > > > > > >> known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we > can > > > only > > > > > > >> go so far in understanding another person's understanding and > > much > > > > > > >> less far in communicating that to other people (knowing > someone > > > is a > > > > > > >> very different thing from being able to share that knowledge > in > > a > > > > > > >> rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of > > the > > > > > > >> spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their > knowledge > > is > > > > > > >> entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that > > > swirl > > > > > > beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in > > what > > > > lies > > > > > > >> beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young > > > children > > > > > > >> are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so > > > > powerfully > > > > > > >> dominated by abstractions. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> All the best, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Rod > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees= > > > > plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees= > > > > > plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > >> ] > > > > > > >> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > > > > > > >> Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 > > > > > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Try this, in Word this time. > > > > > > >> Andy > > > > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > >> *Andy Blunden* > > > > > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > > >> On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post > > the > > > > > > >> chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which > > MUST > > > be > > > > > > >> somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> After reading what the person said, then discussion of the > ideas > > > > seems > > > > > > >> appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended > > > > essay's > > > > > > >> on his view of Romantic Science. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they > were, > > > > were > > > > > > >> not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of > > > their > > > > > > >> enterprise encompassed those fields and more. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual > > > case > > > > in > > > > > > >> no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their > > > work. > > > > > > >> Nor does Luria argue so. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> mike > > > > > > >> ? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg < > > > > dkellogg60@gmail.com > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I think the problem with this view of romantic science > > > > > > >> is that it > > > > > > >> completely precludes building a psychology on a > > > > > > >> sociology. In that sense > > > > > > >> (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist > > > > > > >> at all. Vygotsky > > > > > > >> certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the > > > > > > >> individual case"; such > > > > > > >> an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of > > > > > > >> theory. I'm not sure > > > > > > >> Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a > > > > > > >> Shattered Mind" and > > > > > > >> "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. > > > > > > >> Remember the main > > > > > > >> criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human > > > > > > >> Conflicts" was always that > > > > > > >> it was too quantitative. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> There are, of course, some areas of psychology that > > > > > > >> are well studied as > > > > > > >> case histories. Recently, I've been looking into > > > > > > >> suicidology, and in > > > > > > >> particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered > > > > > > >> the linguistic > > > > > > >> analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have > > > > > > >> been influenced, as > > > > > > >> early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work > > > > > > >> on schizophrinia). > > > > > > >> Now you would think that if ever there was a field > > > > > > >> that would benefit from > > > > > > >> total immersion in the individual case, this is one. > > > > > > >> But Shneidman says > > > > > > >> that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal > > > > > > >> phrases, and as a > > > > > > >> consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively > > > > > > >> (one of his first > > > > > > >> studies was simply to sort a pile of real and > > > > > > >> imitation suicide notes and > > > > > > >> carefully note the criteria he had when he made > > > > > > >> correct judgements). And of > > > > > > >> course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide > > > > > > >> is that the individual > > > > > > >> case can be utterly disregarded, since the great > > > > > > >> variations are > > > > > > >> sociological and the psychological variables all seem > > > > > > >> trivial, transient, > > > > > > >> or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a > > > > > > >> large scale (as we must > > > > > > >> these days). Shneidman says he has never read a > > > > > > >> suicide note he would want > > > > > > >> to have written. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> David Kellogg > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' > > > > > > >> style of Romantic > > > > > > >> > Science was his complete immersion in the individual > > > > > > >> case before him, and > > > > > > >> > development of a science of complete persons. The > > > > > > >> paradigm of this type of > > > > > > >> > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative > > > > > > >> Science" I suppose. The > > > > > > >> > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each > > > > > > >> case, e.g. facial > > > > > > >> > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a > > > > > > >> "covering law" for just this > > > > > > >> > aspect. > > > > > > >> > Andy > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > >> > *Andy Blunden* > > > > > > >> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > > >> < > > > > > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/> > > > > > > >> > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >> Mike, > > > > > > >> >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that > > > > > > >> naysayers were cited in > > > > > > >> >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering > > > > > > >> if some of that push back > > > > > > >> >> was related to his practice of romantic science, > > > > > > >> which, if I understand > > > > > > >> >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in > > > > > > >> the phenomena of > > > > > > >> >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, > > > > > > >> for example, immersed > > > > > > >> >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His > > > > > > >> writing prefigures the cell > > > > > > >> >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of > > > > > > >> microscopes could not confirm > > > > > > >> >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner > > > > > > >> and Sacks makes me > > > > > > >> >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at > > > > > > >> issue. Different styles > > > > > > >> >> of research bring different construals. This may be > > > > > > >> the bane of > > > > > > >> >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really > > > > > > >> make Sacks less of a > > > > > > >> >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? > > > > > > >> >> Henry > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole > > > > > > >> > > > mcole@ucsd.edu > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our > > > > > > >> connections with Luria and > > > > > > >> >>> the fact that we > > > > > > >> >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a > > > > > > >> romantic science. He was a > > > > > > >> >>> shy > > > > > > >> >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, > > > > > > >> and the difference > > > > > > >> >>> between > > > > > > >> >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the > > > > > > >> interview with them that > > > > > > >> >>> someone > > > > > > >> >>> pirated on > > > > > > >> >>> to youtube. > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, > > > > > > >> engaging intellectually all > > > > > > >> >>> the while. > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> mike > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> martinl@azscience.org>> > > > > > > >> >>> wrote: > > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > > >> >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the > > > > > > >> privilege of spending an > > > > > > >> >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting > > > > > > >> Jerry Bruner and Carol > > > > > > >> >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in for Sylvia who > > > > > > >> couldn't make the dinner - it > > > > > > >> >>>> was > > > > > > >> >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you > > > > > > >> ever hear from Bruner? I > > > > > > >> >>>> wonder if he's still active. > > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > > >> >>>> Laura > > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > > >> >>>> Sent from my iPad > > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > > >> >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole > > > > > > >> > > > mcole@ucsd.edu > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > > >> >>>> Dear Colleagues --- > > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > > >> >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news > > > > > > >> that Oliver Sacks has > > > > > > >> >>>> succumbed to cancer. > > > > > > >> >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. > > > > > > >> >>>> mike > > > > > > >> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > > >> >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM > > > > > > >> >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; > > > > > > >> Neurologist and Author > > > > > > >> >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks > > > > > > >> >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > >> lchcmike@gmail.com> > > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > > >> >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com > > > > > > >> > > > sashacole510@gmail.com > > > > > >: > > > > > > >> Oliver Sacks Dies at > > > > > > >> 82; Neurologist > > > > > > >> >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks > > > > > > >> >>>> < > > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > > > > > >> a < > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > > > > > >> > > > > > a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 > > > > > > >> 972441657668®i_id=0> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > > > > > > >> >>>> By > > > > > > >> >>>> GREGORY COWLES > > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > > >> >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest > > > > > > >> pathways in > > > > > > >> >>>> best-selling > > > > > > >> >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife > > > > > > >> for a Hat,? achieving > > > > > > >> >>>> a > > > > > > >> >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. > > > > > > >> >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: > > > > > > >> http://nyti.ms/1LL040D > > > > > > >> >>>> < > > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > > > > > >> a < > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > > > > > >> > > > > > a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 > > > > > > >> 972441657668®i_id=0> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > > > > > > >> >>>> To > > > > > > >> >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times > > > > > > >> articles, subscribe today. > > > > > > >> >>>> See > > > > > > >> >>>> Subscription Options. > > > > > > >> >>>> < > > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC > > > > > > >> > > > > > IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP > > > > > > >> AvEGfk= > > > > > > >> < > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC > > > > > > >> > > > > > IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP > > > > > > >> > > > > > AvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_i > > > > > > >> d=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > > > > > > >> >>>> To > > > > > > >> >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add > > > > > > >> nytdirect@nytimes.com > > > > > > > > >> nytdirect@nytimes.com> > > > > > > >> to your > > > > > > >> >>>> address book. Advertisement > > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > > >> >>>> < > > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > > >> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto > < > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secu > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > re.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn > > > > > > >> > > > > > 1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=Mis > > > > > > >> > > > > > tressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistr > > > > > > >> essamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview> > > > > > > >> &opzn&page= > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview > > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > > > >> >>>> Copyright 2015 > > > > > > >> >>>> < > > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP > > > > > > >> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ== > > > > > > >> < > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP > > > > > > >> > > > > > IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31 > > > > > > >> > > > > > 502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668&r > > > > > > >> egi_id=0> > > > > > > >> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcd > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [The entire original message is not included.] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Rafi Santo > > > > > Project Lead > > > > > Hive Research Lab > > > > > hiveresearchlab.org > > > > > A project of Indiana University and New York University > > > > > > > > > > Indiana University - Learning Sciences > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > > > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From Peg.Griffin@att.net Thu Sep 3 14:11:16 2015 From: Peg.Griffin@att.net (Peg Griffin) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 17:11:16 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <55E710F5.2020903@mira.net> References: <55E37E99.000004FA@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <12553216-10FA-4C70-8D8F-097266281640@gmail.com> <55E4EF7C.7090500@mira.net> <55E526CC.6080400@mira.net> <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC311027525EA@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> <55E5C259.9060101@mira.net> <000f01d0e4de$fb40b960$f1c22c20$@att.net> <001701d0e4e7$ad752be0$085f83a0$@att.net> <002501d0e58e$ee919760$cbb4c620$@att.net> <55E710F5.2020903@mira.net> Message-ID: <003c01d0e68d$13649340$3a2db9c0$@att.net> Andy, about what kind of tool: For me, at this time, it is a tool for thinking about romantic science, Sacks, and Luria. It's a tad like the problem of figure/ground illusion/perception -- except it's four panes instead of two. I want a tool to see if I can avoid confusing or conflating specific and concrete as well as confusing or conflating general and abstract. AND I want the tool to let me see together the dimension of concrete/abstract and the dimension of specific/general. In the past I have used it to help me think about genetic primary examples. I am also now about to try seeing what I need (maybe different dimensions altogether, maybe more than four panes) to think about genetic chimerism and social situations with multiple activities which are coexisting... In a sense, yes, my use of the tool is always diagnostic -- showing me what I stumble on in thinking -- and might bring a little progress (treatment). Just like in the figure/ground illusions you can twiddle around a bit and make things obvious that you couldn't "see". I'm attaching here some different ways you can twiddle around with the Johari window. Does that help? PG -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 11:09 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science So this is a diagnostic tool, Peg? Could you spell this out a little more for someone who still doesn't grasp what you are talking about? :) andy intrigued. ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 3/09/2015 12:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > What I did not make clear is that the JoHari window is not really the same as a matrix. It is a different kind of tool than I think David and Peter are thinking about. > Here's the trick: You change the pane sizes to emphasize the one of the four panes you are currently acting on -- but all four panes are always there. > So you can make the "concrete specific" pane HUGE by moving the top bottom inner divider far to the right and moving the left right inner divider far to the bottom. Or you can move only one of the dividers. And you can move the dividers without such extremes. > > Even if a diagnosis/treatment only does the first move I described, there's little abstract involved. I don't mind that so much if the actors are involved in an emergency triage activity, but without the abstract you are going on observables very influenced by perceptual and cultural access of the actors and you might not even have the most useful template from the general to guide/evaluate your trials and errors. So you'd better shift the panes pretty soon before things get way off base. > > You can also fool around with the arrangement of the terms that name the panes: Do you get more out of concrete vs. specific or more out of specific vs. concrete (in David's terms the anchors for the cline). Same for abstract vs. concrete or concrete vs. abstract. > PG > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf > Of Peg Griffin > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:55 PM > To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > As far as I understand those terms (nomothetic and idiographic), the combined motor method does unite them and so arrives at dual stimulation, given the non-accidental mosaic. > But I don't know that my understanding goes far enough or too far! > Peg > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf > Of mike cole > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:08 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > Is that simultaneously uniting the nomothetic and idiographic, Peg? That is the way Luria talked about it. > mike > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > >> Just in a short-hand: >> >> Concrete Specific: Zasetsky (The man with the shattered world) >> >> Concrete General: People with traumatic brain injury during WWII >> >> Abstract General: Brain is a mosaic of specific domains with actions >> that interact in dual stimulations (not pure will) >> >> Abstract Specific: A man acts to recall using images; it fails on a >> certain target. The man starts appears to abandon the recall by >> acting an intimately related system ? e.g., reciting the alphabet. >> But the recital is ?interrupted? when it bumps into the original >> recall target and the recall is successful. >> >> >> >> For diagnosis and/or treatment, we must rise to the concrete specific. >> >> >> >> Sorry I don?t have time to develop this further but I am sure many on >> this list do, and I know that Luria and Sacks did so in wondrous and >> glorious instances. >> >> Peg >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:21 AM >> To: Peg Griffin; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >> >> >> >> Could you give an example, Peg? >> andy >> >> _____ >> >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> >> On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: >> >> What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and Sachs ? >> with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made (based >> on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and Harrington >> Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill in each of the four cells in >> the square about an issue of interest. It helps me think about >> genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. >> Concrete Abstract >> Specific >> General >> >> A romantic square, >> Peg >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rod >> Parker-Rees >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM >> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >> >> Thanks for posting this, Andy. >> >> I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his >> reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his observation >> that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event isolated >> from other things or events. Its real object is to see and understand >> the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'. >> >> We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or >> less) on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but >> our communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using >> these categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of >> science but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use >> of language and more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The >> romantic focus on an 'individual' can only ever be conducted in the >> medium of a very un-individual language and no person's life could >> possibly be understood without reference to relationships with other >> persons which then spread roots and branches out to a forest of connections, causes and consequences. >> >> David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of theory >> if one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case and >> Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the >> concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but the >> creative sources of great historical events and the important ideas >> and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the contribution >> individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than >> themselves but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want >> neither to split living reality into its elementary components nor to >> represent the wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that lose the properties of the phenomena themselves'. >> >> I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is >> particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how >> all minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' >> lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory >> associations which words bring with them in a way which, for most of >> us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a >> particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that every >> person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, >> behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface of a >> pool of connections and associations which can never be shared with >> or known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can >> only go so far in understanding another person's understanding and >> much less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone >> is a very different thing from being able to share that knowledge in >> a rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of the >> spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge is >> entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that swirl beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! >> >> I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what >> lies beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young >> children are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so >> powerfully dominated by abstractions. >> >> All the best, >> >> Rod >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.ed >> u >> ] >> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >> Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >> >> Try this, in Word this time. >> Andy >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: >> >> ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the >> chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST be >> somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. >> >> After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas >> seems appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended >> essay's on his view of Romantic Science. >> >> It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, were >> not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of their >> enterprise encompassed those fields and more. >> >> Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual case >> in no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their work. >> Nor does Luria argue so. >> >> mike >> ? >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg > > wrote: >> >> I think the problem with this view of romantic science >> is that it >> completely precludes building a psychology on a >> sociology. In that sense >> (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist >> at all. Vygotsky >> certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the >> individual case"; such >> an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of >> theory. I'm not sure >> Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a >> Shattered Mind" and >> "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. >> Remember the main >> criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human >> Conflicts" was always that >> it was too quantitative. >> >> There are, of course, some areas of psychology that >> are well studied as >> case histories. Recently, I've been looking into >> suicidology, and in >> particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered >> the linguistic >> analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have >> been influenced, as >> early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work >> on schizophrinia). >> Now you would think that if ever there was a field >> that would benefit from >> total immersion in the individual case, this is one. >> But Shneidman says >> that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal >> phrases, and as a >> consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively >> (one of his first >> studies was simply to sort a pile of real and >> imitation suicide notes and >> carefully note the criteria he had when he made >> correct judgements). And of >> course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide >> is that the individual >> case can be utterly disregarded, since the great >> variations are >> sociological and the psychological variables all seem >> trivial, transient, >> or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a >> large scale (as we must >> these days). Shneidman says he has never read a >> suicide note he would want >> to have written. >> >> David Kellogg >> >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden >> > ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: >> >> > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' >> style of Romantic >> > Science was his complete immersion in the individual >> case before him, and >> > development of a science of complete persons. The >> paradigm of this type of >> > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative >> Science" I suppose. The >> > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each >> case, e.g. facial >> > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a >> "covering law" for just this >> > aspect. >> > Andy >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> > *Andy Blunden* >> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> < >> http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/> >> > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >> > >> >> Mike, >> >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that >> naysayers were cited in >> >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering >> if some of that push back >> >> was related to his practice of romantic science, >> which, if I understand >> >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in >> the phenomena of >> >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, >> for example, immersed >> >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His >> writing prefigures the cell >> >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of >> microscopes could not confirm >> >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner >> and Sacks makes me >> >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at >> issue. Different styles >> >> of research bring different construals. This may be >> the bane of >> >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really >> make Sacks less of a >> >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? >> >> Henry >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole >> >> > >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our >> connections with Luria and >> >>> the fact that we >> >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a >> romantic science. He was a >> >>> shy >> >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, >> and the difference >> >>> between >> >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the >> interview with them that >> >>> someone >> >>> pirated on >> >>> to youtube. >> >>> >> >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, >> engaging intellectually all >> >>> the while. >> >>> >> >>> mike >> >>> >> >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin >> > martinl@azscience.org>> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the >> privilege of spending an >> >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting >> Jerry Bruner and Carol >> >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in for Sylvia who >> couldn't make the dinner - it >> >>>> was >> >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you >> ever hear from Bruner? I >> >>>> wonder if he's still active. >> >>>> >> >>>> Laura >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Sent from my iPad >> >>>> >> >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole >> >> > >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Dear Colleagues --- >> >>>> >> >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news >> that Oliver Sacks has >> >>>> succumbed to cancer. >> >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. >> >>>> mike >> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >>>> >> >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM >> >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; >> Neurologist and Author >> >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks >> >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com > lchcmike@gmail.com> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com >> : >> Oliver Sacks Dies at >> 82; Neurologist >> >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks >> >>>> < >> >>>> >> >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL >> 4 >> a < >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL >> 4 >> a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=144 >> 0 >> 972441657668®i_id=0> >> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >> >>>> By >> >>>> GREGORY COWLES >> >>>> >> >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest >> pathways in >> >>>> best-selling >> >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife >> for a Hat,? achieving >> >>>> a >> >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. >> >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: >> http://nyti.ms/1LL040D >> >>>> < >> >>>> >> >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL >> 4 >> a < >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL >> 4 >> a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=144 >> 0 >> 972441657668®i_id=0> >> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >> >>>> To >> >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times >> articles, subscribe today. >> >>>> See >> >>>> Subscription Options. >> >>>> < >> >>>> >> >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rw >> C >> IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869m >> P >> AvEGfk= >> < >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rw >> C >> IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869m >> P >> AvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_ >> i >> d=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >> >>>> To >> >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add >> nytdirect@nytimes.com > nytdirect@nytimes.com> >> to your >> >>>> address book. Advertisement >> >>>> >> >>>> < >> >>>> >> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto < >> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=sec >> u >> re.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&s >> n >> 1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=Mi >> s >> tressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmist >> r >> essamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview> >> &opzn&page= >> secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview >> >>>> > >> >>>> Copyright 2015 >> >>>> < >> >>>> >> >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVu >> P IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ== >> < >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVu >> P >> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd3 >> 1 >> 502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668& >> r >> egi_id=0> >> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 >> >>>> > >> >>>> | The New York Times Company >> >>>> < >> >>>> >> >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEc >> S >> h < >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEc >> S >> h&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=144 >> 0 >> 972441657668®i_id=0> >> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 >> >>>> > >> >>>> | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> >> >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a >> natural science with an >> >>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> -- >> >>> >> >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a >> natural science with an >> >>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an >> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] < >> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> < >> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> >> >> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely >> for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not >> the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the >> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. >> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know >> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are >> not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University >> accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility >> to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not >> accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing >> in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or >> services unless accompanied by an official order form. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Johari panes.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 13321 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150903/91cf27d1/attachment.bin From Peg.Griffin@att.net Thu Sep 3 14:14:59 2015 From: Peg.Griffin@att.net (Peg Griffin) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 17:14:59 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: References: <55E37E99.000004FA@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <12553216-10FA-4C70-8D8F-097266281640@gmail.com> <55E4EF7C.7090500@mira.net> <55E526CC.6080400@mira.net> <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC311027525EA@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> <55E5C259.9060101@mira.net> <000f01d0e4de$fb40b960$f1c22c20$@att.net> <001701d0e4e7$ad752be0$085f83a0$@att.net> <002501d0e58e$ee919760$cbb4c620$@att.net> <55E710F5.2020903@mira.net> <55e71f73.e5de440a.d8ee8.ffffc165@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <004001d0e68d$98d1d510$ca757f30$@att.net> Thanks, Mike. -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 9:10 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science I am unclear about what you think my belief in the matter, David. I view Romantic science as a way to achieve a goal Luria had from the beginning-- the division between the nomothetic and idiographic. Particularly in the case of the man with the back of his head shot off, he was able to combine the two forms of science. People are so fixated on the fact that he wrote about the case so well that they forget he was trying to do generalizing science AND lived experience. Me too. Here is a recent brief essay I wrote about my current understandings of what I have been doing in this regard for some sort of publication of the National Academy of Education. Maybe its all confusion. But I find it satisfying. mike On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:20 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > I think it's the eternal problem, Mike: how do we relate the instance > to the type? The usual solution is something like a division of labor: > clinical versus theoretical. If you are doing clinical work, you start > with the instance and if it doesn't relate to the type then we have to > turn our backs on the type and treat the instance (e.g. when Sacks' > cancer doesn't relate to the generalization that eye cancers do not > normally metastasize to the liver). If you are a theoretician, like > the gentleman urging us all to "fuck nuance", then you turn your back > on the instance and consider an ideal type, or better yet, the system > as a whole (e.g. when Durkheim said that the particular reasons for > killing yourself that we find in suicide notes are utterly irrelevant > and he approved when the British government started to just bag and bin them). > > I don't think that either Luria or Vygotsky fits into either > category.They were both both theorizing clinicians and clinical > theorists. Even in his case studies, Luria's interest was always in > the "extreme type". And Vygotsky, who certainly believed in the > "experimentum crucis", had a penchant for making the > gendankenexperiment into a real experiment. Here too, though, there is > a limit. I think the study of language development simply cannot use > either the extreme type or the gedankexperiment, Language is just too > sensitive to human self consciousness. In no other science is it > permissible to fabricate data--do linguists get an exception just > because its so much easier and therefore more of a tradition? I think > not--and so I think that linguists like Langacker who don't use real > data will inevitably get left out of a truly structural-functional-genetic approach. > > David Kellogg > > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 8:14 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > I am having a lot of difficulty of relating the recent discussion to > > the work of either ARL or Oliver. > > mike > > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 3:41 PM, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > > I wasn't really critiquing the two-by-two matrix: actually, I > > > think > that > > > such matrices are in fact composed of clines, although we tend not > > > to > use > > > them that way. After thirty years of teaching, I find that I have > myself > > > have become an example person, and it's almost impossible for me > > > to > grasp > > > "Romantic Science" as a concept or even as a diagramme without > examples; > > > being a linguist, the examples that come naturally to me are languages. > > > > > > There is a problem with my example that won't fit in the matrix, > though. > > > Let us consider a language as a bounded historical entity > > > (Neanderthal, > > or > > > we can use English, but it will help if we take a point of view > > > very > far > > in > > > the future, when English has become a dead language, preferably > > > through > > the > > > wholesale extinction of our species, because otherwise we can say, > > > as > > some > > > linguists do say, that no language ever really dies--it just > > > changes > into > > > another language). The language system as a whole is essentially > > > the > same > > > as the set of all utterances ever made or written in that language. > > Because > > > the language is dead, no other utterances are possible--nobody > > > will say them, and nobody can relate them to any context. In this > > > situation, the cline of instantiation and the cline of abstraction > > > (which is really > the > > > cline of potential versus real) must join, and that means that > > > lines > that > > > were supposedly perpendicular turn out to be parallel. > > > > > > I found the paper on nuance extremely puzzling, precisely because > > > of > the > > > lack of examples, so I read it as an attack on conversation analysis. > > Then > > > it made perfect sense. But I found the references to "making love" > > > in > the > > > description of peasant marriages rather curious, given the title > > > of the paper. So now the word "fuck" is used in academic > > > discourse, to talk > > about > > > French peasants making love....it kind of leaves skidmarks on > > > brain, somehow. > > > > > > I once met a doctor in Sudan studying diarrhea. In the course of > > > the evening,he managed to make his study, and even its subject > > > matter, > truly > > > fascinating; we could hardly wait till morning to see if we could > > > find samples of some of the things he was talking about. > > > Similarly, one of > the > > > first linguistics papers I ever read, by my old professor James > McCawley > > at > > > University of Chicago, was all about why you can say > "fan-fucking-tastic" > > > and but you cannot say "fantas-fucking-tic"; I remember the paper > > > well, > > and > > > later I used it to analyze a song from "My Fair Lady" > > > ("Abso-blooming-lutely still" in "Wouldn't it lov-er-ly?"). > > > > > > I'm not arguing that we can or even should abolish the euphemism > > > treadmills; we can't. Paul recently sent around a call for papers > > > for something called "The Journal of Negro Education", and I did a > > > double > > take > > > until I realized it was the journal of W.E.B. Dubois. This summer, > > > I learned that in South Africa "black" is perjorative, and > > > "colored" is > > used > > > self-descriptively; in America (I think) it's the other way around. > But a > > > sociologist should probably be aware that the word "fuck" has > > > actually > > NOT > > > lost all semantic content: if it had it would not be the staple of > > > rape-friendly discourses like pop music and hip-hop. Or is that > > > just nuance? > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Rafi Santo wrote: > > > > > > > Pardon the tangent, but I couldn't help but posting this recent > > > > paper > > > that > > > > was presented last month at the ASA: > > > > http://kieranhealy.org/files/papers/fuck-nuance.pdf > > > > > > > > Aside from having a catchy title, it's pretty relevant to this > > > discussion. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Lplarry > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I hope I am not going off on a tangent. The concept "morphic" > > > > > and > > the > > > > > notion that the four approach's are equally valid but express > > > different > > > > > aspects of THE RELATION. > > > > > The notion of difference/relation as a unity and each > > > > > difference is equally valid but expressing a different > > > > > "character" within the > > > relation > > > > > (as a unity) > > > > > Not abstracted or reduced aspects but "morphic" aspects?. > > > > > If this is too idio just ignore my question. It is coming from > > > > > left > > > > field. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: "Andy Blunden" > > > > > Sent: ?2015-?09-?02 8:10 AM > > > > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > > > > > > So this is a diagnostic tool, Peg? > > > > > Could you spell this out a little more for someone who still > > > > > doesn't grasp what you are talking about? :) andy intrigued. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 3/09/2015 12:52 AM, Peg > > > > > Griffin wrote: > > > > > > What I did not make clear is that the JoHari window is not > > > > > > really > > the > > > > > same as a matrix. It is a different kind of tool than I think > David > > > and > > > > > Peter are thinking about. > > > > > > Here's the trick: You change the pane sizes to emphasize the > > > > > > one > of > > > the > > > > > four panes you are currently acting on -- but all four panes > > > > > are > > always > > > > > there. > > > > > > So you can make the "concrete specific" pane HUGE by moving > > > > > > the > top > > > > > bottom inner divider far to the right and moving the left > > > > > right > inner > > > > > divider far to the bottom. Or you can move only one of the > > dividers. > > > > > And you can move the dividers without such extremes. > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if a diagnosis/treatment only does the first move I > described, > > > > > there's little abstract involved. I don't mind that so much > > > > > if the > > > > actors > > > > > are involved in an emergency triage activity, but without the > > abstract > > > > you > > > > > are going on observables very influenced by perceptual and > > > > > cultural > > > > access > > > > > of the actors and you might not even have the most useful > > > > > template > > from > > > > the > > > > > general to guide/evaluate your trials and errors. So you'd > > > > > better > > > shift > > > > > the panes pretty soon before things get way off base. > > > > > > > > > > > > You can also fool around with the arrangement of the terms > > > > > > that > > name > > > > the > > > > > panes: Do you get more out of concrete vs. specific or more > > > > > out of specific vs. concrete (in David's terms the anchors for the cline). > > > Same > > > > > for abstract vs. concrete or concrete vs. abstract. > > > > > > PG > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu > [mailto: > > > > > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf > > > > > xmca-l-bounces+Of > > Peg > > > > > Griffin > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:55 PM > > > > > > To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as I understand those terms (nomothetic and > > > > > > idiographic), > > the > > > > > combined motor method does unite them and so arrives at dual > > > stimulation, > > > > > given the non-accidental mosaic. > > > > > > But I don't know that my understanding goes far enough or > > > > > > too > far! > > > > > > Peg > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu > [mailto: > > > > > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf > > > > > xmca-l-bounces+Of > > mike > > > > > cole > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:08 PM > > > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > > > > > > > > Is that simultaneously uniting the nomothetic and > > > > > > idiographic, > Peg? > > > > That > > > > > is the way Luria talked about it. > > > > > > mike > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Peg Griffin < > Peg.Griffin@att.net> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Just in a short-hand: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Concrete Specific: Zasetsky (The man with the shattered > > > > > >> world) > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Concrete General: People with traumatic brain injury during > > > > > >> WWII > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Abstract General: Brain is a mosaic of specific domains > > > > > >> with > > actions > > > > > >> that interact in dual stimulations (not pure will) > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Abstract Specific: A man acts to recall using images; it > > > > > >> fails > > on a > > > > > >> certain target. The man starts appears to abandon the > > > > > >> recall by acting an intimately related system ? e.g., > > > > > >> reciting the > alphabet. > > > > > >> But the recital is ?interrupted? when it bumps into the > > > > > >> original recall target and the recall is successful. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> For diagnosis and/or treatment, we must rise to the > > > > > >> concrete > > > specific. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Sorry I don?t have time to develop this further but I am > > > > > >> sure > many > > > on > > > > > >> this list do, and I know that Luria and Sacks did so in > > > > > >> wondrous > > and > > > > > >> glorious instances. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Peg > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net] > > > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:21 AM > > > > > >> To: Peg Griffin; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > > > > > >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Could you give an example, Peg? > > > > > >> andy > > > > > >> > > > > > >> _____ > > > > > >> > > > > > >> *Andy Blunden* > > > > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria > > > > > >> and > > Sachs > > > ? > > > > > >> with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I > > > > > >> made > > > (based > > > > > >> on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and > Harrington > > > > > >> Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill in > > > > > >> each > of > > > the > > > > > four cells in > > > > > >> the square about an issue of interest. It helps me think about > > > > > >> genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. > > > > > >> Concrete Abstract > > > > > >> Specific > > > > > >> General > > > > > >> > > > > > >> A romantic square, > > > > > >> Peg > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu > > [mailto: > > > > > >> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On > > > > > >> xmca-l-bounces+Behalf > Of > > > Rod > > > > > >> Parker-Rees > > > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM > > > > > >> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Thanks for posting this, Andy. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because > > > > > >> of his reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and > > > > > >> his > > observation > > > > > >> that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event > > isolated > > > > > >> from other things or events. Its real object is to see and > > > understand > > > > > >> the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> We are able to communicate because we are able to agree > > > > > >> (more or > > > less) > > > > > >> on ways of organising experience into shareable categories > > > > > >> but > our > > > > > >> communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of > > > > > >> using > > these > > > > > >> categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches > > > > > >> of > > > science > > > > > >> but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' > > > > > >> use of language and more routine, formulaic forms of > > > > > >> communication. The romantic focus on an 'individual' can > > > > > >> only ever be conducted in > > the > > > > > >> medium of a very un-individual language and no person's > > > > > >> life > could > > > > > >> possibly be understood without reference to relationships > > > > > >> with > > other > > > > > >> persons which then spread roots and branches out to a > > > > > >> forest of > > > > > connections, causes and consequences. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level > > > > > >> of > > theory > > > if > > > > > >> one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual > > > > > >> case > and > > > > > >> Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to > > > > > >> the concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come > > > > > >> and go, but > > the > > > > > >> creative sources of great historical events and the > > > > > >> important > > ideas > > > > > >> and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the > > > contribution > > > > > >> individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than > > > themselves > > > > > >> but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want > > > > > >> neither to > > > split > > > > > >> living reality into its elementary components nor to > > > > > >> represent > the > > > > > >> wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that > > > > > >> lose > the > > > > > properties of the phenomena themselves'. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience > > > > > >> is particularly interesting because it may reveal something > > > > > >> about > how > > > all > > > > > >> minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have > > > > > >> been > 'set' > > > > > >> lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the > > > > > >> sensory associations which words bring with them in a way > > > > > >> which, for > most > > of > > > > > >> us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides > > > > > >> a particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact > > > > > >> that > every > > > > > >> person's use of a shared language (whether of words, > > > > > >> gestures, behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just > > > > > >> the surface > of a > > > > > >> pool of connections and associations which can never be > > > > > >> shared > > with > > > or > > > > > >> known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we > > > > > >> can > > only > > > > > >> go so far in understanding another person's understanding > > > > > >> and > much > > > > > >> less far in communicating that to other people (knowing > > > > > >> someone > > is a > > > > > >> very different thing from being able to share that > > > > > >> knowledge in > a > > > > > >> rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side > > > > > >> of > the > > > > > >> spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their > > > > > >> knowledge > is > > > > > >> entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations > > > > > >> that > > swirl > > > > > beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested > > > > > >> in > what > > > lies > > > > > >> beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young > > children > > > > > >> are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so > > > powerfully > > > > > >> dominated by abstractions. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> All the best, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Rod > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees= > > > plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees= > > > > plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > >> ] > > > > > >> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > > > > > >> Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 > > > > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Try this, in Word this time. > > > > > >> Andy > > > > > >> ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > >> - > > > > > >> *Andy Blunden* > > > > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, > > > > > >> mike cole wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would > > > > > >> post > the > > > > > >> chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography > > > > > >> which > MUST > > be > > > > > >> somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> After reading what the person said, then discussion of the > > > > > >> ideas > > > seems > > > > > >> appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of > > > > > >> extended > > > essay's > > > > > >> on his view of Romantic Science. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they > > > > > >> were, > > > were > > > > > >> not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature > > > > > >> of > > their > > > > > >> enterprise encompassed those fields and more. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the > > > > > >> individual > > case > > > in > > > > > >> no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in > > > > > >> their > > work. > > > > > >> Nor does Luria argue so. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> mike > > > > > >> ? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg < > > > dkellogg60@gmail.com > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I think the problem with this view of romantic science > > > > > >> is that it > > > > > >> completely precludes building a psychology on a > > > > > >> sociology. In that sense > > > > > >> (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist > > > > > >> at all. Vygotsky > > > > > >> certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the > > > > > >> individual case"; such > > > > > >> an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of > > > > > >> theory. I'm not sure > > > > > >> Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a > > > > > >> Shattered Mind" and > > > > > >> "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. > > > > > >> Remember the main > > > > > >> criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human > > > > > >> Conflicts" was always that > > > > > >> it was too quantitative. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> There are, of course, some areas of psychology that > > > > > >> are well studied as > > > > > >> case histories. Recently, I've been looking into > > > > > >> suicidology, and in > > > > > >> particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered > > > > > >> the linguistic > > > > > >> analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have > > > > > >> been influenced, as > > > > > >> early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work > > > > > >> on schizophrinia). > > > > > >> Now you would think that if ever there was a field > > > > > >> that would benefit from > > > > > >> total immersion in the individual case, this is one. > > > > > >> But Shneidman says > > > > > >> that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal > > > > > >> phrases, and as a > > > > > >> consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively > > > > > >> (one of his first > > > > > >> studies was simply to sort a pile of real and > > > > > >> imitation suicide notes and > > > > > >> carefully note the criteria he had when he made > > > > > >> correct judgements). And of > > > > > >> course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide > > > > > >> is that the individual > > > > > >> case can be utterly disregarded, since the great > > > > > >> variations are > > > > > >> sociological and the psychological variables all seem > > > > > >> trivial, transient, > > > > > >> or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a > > > > > >> large scale (as we must > > > > > >> these days). Shneidman says he has never read a > > > > > >> suicide note he would want > > > > > >> to have written. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> David Kellogg > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden > > > > > >> > > > > >> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' > > > > > >> style of Romantic > > > > > >> > Science was his complete immersion in the individual > > > > > >> case before him, and > > > > > >> > development of a science of complete persons. The > > > > > >> paradigm of this type of > > > > > >> > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative > > > > > >> Science" I suppose. The > > > > > >> > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each > > > > > >> case, e.g. facial > > > > > >> > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a > > > > > >> "covering law" for just this > > > > > >> > aspect. > > > > > >> > Andy > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > >> > *Andy Blunden* > > > > > >> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > >> < > > > > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/> > > > > > >> > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> Mike, > > > > > >> >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that > > > > > >> naysayers were cited in > > > > > >> >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering > > > > > >> if some of that push back > > > > > >> >> was related to his practice of romantic science, > > > > > >> which, if I understand > > > > > >> >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in > > > > > >> the phenomena of > > > > > >> >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, > > > > > >> for example, immersed > > > > > >> >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His > > > > > >> writing prefigures the cell > > > > > >> >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of > > > > > >> microscopes could not confirm > > > > > >> >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner > > > > > >> and Sacks makes me > > > > > >> >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at > > > > > >> issue. Different styles > > > > > >> >> of research bring different construals. This may be > > > > > >> the bane of > > > > > >> >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really > > > > > >> make Sacks less of a > > > > > >> >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? > > > > > >> >> Henry > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole > > > > > >> > > mcole@ucsd.edu > > > > >> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our > > > > > >> connections with Luria and > > > > > >> >>> the fact that we > > > > > >> >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a > > > > > >> romantic science. He was a > > > > > >> >>> shy > > > > > >> >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, > > > > > >> and the difference > > > > > >> >>> between > > > > > >> >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the > > > > > >> interview with them that > > > > > >> >>> someone > > > > > >> >>> pirated on > > > > > >> >>> to youtube. > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, > > > > > >> engaging intellectually all > > > > > >> >>> the while. > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> mike > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> martinl@azscience.org>> > > > > > >> >>> wrote: > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the > > > > > >> privilege of spending an > > > > > >> >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting > > > > > >> Jerry Bruner and Carol > > > > > >> >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in for Sylvia who > > > > > >> couldn't make the dinner - it > > > > > >> >>>> was > > > > > >> >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you > > > > > >> ever hear from Bruner? I > > > > > >> >>>> wonder if he's still active. > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> Laura > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> Sent from my iPad > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole > > > > > >> > > mcole@ucsd.edu > > > > >> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> Dear Colleagues --- > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news > > > > > >> that Oliver Sacks has > > > > > >> >>>> succumbed to cancer. > > > > > >> >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. > > > > > >> >>>> mike > > > > > >> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM > > > > > >> >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; > > > > > >> Neurologist and Author > > > > > >> >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks > > > > > >> >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> lchcmike@gmail.com> > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com > > > > > >> > > sashacole510@gmail.com > > > > >: > > > > > >> Oliver Sacks Dies at > > > > > >> 82; Neurologist > > > > > >> >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks > > > > > >> >>>> < > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > > > > >> a < > > > > > >> > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > > > > >> > > > a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id= > > > 1440 > > > > > >> 972441657668®i_id=0> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=14409 > 72441657668®i_id=0> > > > > > >> >>>> By > > > > > >> >>>> GREGORY COWLES > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest > > > > > >> pathways in > > > > > >> >>>> best-selling > > > > > >> >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife > > > > > >> for a Hat,? achieving > > > > > >> >>>> a > > > > > >> >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. > > > > > >> >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: > > > > > >> http://nyti.ms/1LL040D > > > > > >> >>>> < > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > > > > >> a < > > > > > >> > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > > > > >> > > > a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id= > > > 1440 > > > > > >> 972441657668®i_id=0> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=14409 > 72441657668®i_id=0> > > > > > >> >>>> To > > > > > >> >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times > > > > > >> articles, subscribe today. > > > > > >> >>>> See > > > > > >> >>>> Subscription Options. > > > > > >> >>>> < > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC > > > > > >> > > > IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK8 > > > 69mP > > > > > >> AvEGfk= > > > > > >> < > > > > > >> > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC > > > > > >> > > > IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK8 > > > 69mP > > > > > >> > > > AvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&ta > > > sk_i > > > > > >> d=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=14409 > 72441657668®i_id=0> > > > > > >> >>>> To > > > > > >> >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add > > > > > >> nytdirect@nytimes.com > > > > > > >> nytdirect@nytimes.com> > > > > > >> to your > > > > > >> >>>> address book. Advertisement > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> >>>> < > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto < > > > > > >> > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secu > > > > > >> > > > > > re.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn > > > > > >> > > > 1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad > > > =Mis > > > > > >> > > > tressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fm > > > istr > > > > > >> essamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview> > > > > > >> &opzn&page= > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a26 > 4&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad > =MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fm > istressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > > >> >>>> Copyright 2015 > > > > > >> >>>> < > > > > > >> >>>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP > > > > > >> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ== > > > > > >> < > > > > > >> > > > > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP > > > > > >> > > > IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id= > > > bd31 > > > > > >> > > > 502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=14409724416576 > > > 68&r > > > > > >> egi_id=0> > > > > > >> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcd > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [The entire original message is not included.] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Rafi Santo > > > > Project Lead > > > > Hive Research Lab > > > > hiveresearchlab.org > > > > A project of Indiana University and New York University > > > > > > > > Indiana University - Learning Sciences > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From ablunden@mira.net Thu Sep 3 18:08:50 2015 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 11:08:50 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <003c01d0e68d$13649340$3a2db9c0$@att.net> References: <55E37E99.000004FA@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <12553216-10FA-4C70-8D8F-097266281640@gmail.com> <55E4EF7C.7090500@mira.net> <55E526CC.6080400@mira.net> <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC311027525EA@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> <55E5C259.9060101@mira.net> <000f01d0e4de$fb40b960$f1c22c20$@att.net> <001701d0e4e7$ad752be0$085f83a0$@att.net> <002501d0e58e$ee919760$cbb4c620$@att.net> <55E710F5.2020903@mira.net> <003c01d0e68d$13649340$3a2db9c0$@att.net> Message-ID: <55E8EF22.6060207@mira.net> Yes, that helps, Peg. I think it is what is often called a "heuristic" - your equivalent of Engestrom's Expanding Triangle. Thanks! Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 4/09/2015 7:11 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > Andy, about what kind of tool: For me, at this time, it is a tool for thinking about romantic science, Sacks, and Luria. > > It's a tad like the problem of figure/ground illusion/perception -- except it's four panes instead of two. > > I want a tool to see if I can avoid confusing or conflating specific and concrete as well as confusing or conflating general and abstract. > AND I want the tool to let me see together the dimension of concrete/abstract and the dimension of specific/general. > > In the past I have used it to help me think about genetic primary examples. > I am also now about to try seeing what I need (maybe different dimensions altogether, maybe more than four panes) to think about genetic chimerism and social situations with multiple activities which are coexisting... > > In a sense, yes, my use of the tool is always diagnostic -- showing me what I stumble on in thinking -- and might bring a little progress (treatment). > > Just like in the figure/ground illusions you can twiddle around a bit and make things obvious that you couldn't "see". > I'm attaching here some different ways you can twiddle around with the Johari window. > Does that help? > PG > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 11:09 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > So this is a diagnostic tool, Peg? > Could you spell this out a little more for someone who still doesn't grasp what you are talking about? :) andy intrigued. > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 3/09/2015 12:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: >> What I did not make clear is that the JoHari window is not really the same as a matrix. It is a different kind of tool than I think David and Peter are thinking about. >> Here's the trick: You change the pane sizes to emphasize the one of the four panes you are currently acting on -- but all four panes are always there. >> So you can make the "concrete specific" pane HUGE by moving the top bottom inner divider far to the right and moving the left right inner divider far to the bottom. Or you can move only one of the dividers. And you can move the dividers without such extremes. >> >> Even if a diagnosis/treatment only does the first move I described, there's little abstract involved. I don't mind that so much if the actors are involved in an emergency triage activity, but without the abstract you are going on observables very influenced by perceptual and cultural access of the actors and you might not even have the most useful template from the general to guide/evaluate your trials and errors. So you'd better shift the panes pretty soon before things get way off base. >> >> You can also fool around with the arrangement of the terms that name the panes: Do you get more out of concrete vs. specific or more out of specific vs. concrete (in David's terms the anchors for the cline). Same for abstract vs. concrete or concrete vs. abstract. >> PG >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf >> Of Peg Griffin >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:55 PM >> To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >> >> As far as I understand those terms (nomothetic and idiographic), the combined motor method does unite them and so arrives at dual stimulation, given the non-accidental mosaic. >> But I don't know that my understanding goes far enough or too far! >> Peg >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf >> Of mike cole >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:08 PM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >> >> Is that simultaneously uniting the nomothetic and idiographic, Peg? That is the way Luria talked about it. >> mike >> >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: >> >>> Just in a short-hand: >>> >>> Concrete Specific: Zasetsky (The man with the shattered world) >>> >>> Concrete General: People with traumatic brain injury during WWII >>> >>> Abstract General: Brain is a mosaic of specific domains with actions >>> that interact in dual stimulations (not pure will) >>> >>> Abstract Specific: A man acts to recall using images; it fails on a >>> certain target. The man starts appears to abandon the recall by >>> acting an intimately related system ? e.g., reciting the alphabet. >>> But the recital is ?interrupted? when it bumps into the original >>> recall target and the recall is successful. >>> >>> >>> >>> For diagnosis and/or treatment, we must rise to the concrete specific. >>> >>> >>> >>> Sorry I don?t have time to develop this further but I am sure many on >>> this list do, and I know that Luria and Sacks did so in wondrous and >>> glorious instances. >>> >>> Peg >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net] >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:21 AM >>> To: Peg Griffin; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' >>> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >>> >>> >>> >>> Could you give an example, Peg? >>> andy >>> >>> _____ >>> >>> *Andy Blunden* >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>> >>> On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: >>> >>> What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and Sachs ? >>> with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made (based >>> on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and Harrington >>> Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill in each of the four cells in >>> the square about an issue of interest. It helps me think about >>> genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. >>> Concrete Abstract >>> Specific >>> General >>> >>> A romantic square, >>> Peg >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rod >>> Parker-Rees >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM >>> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >>> >>> Thanks for posting this, Andy. >>> >>> I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his >>> reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his observation >>> that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event isolated >>> from other things or events. Its real object is to see and understand >>> the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'. >>> >>> We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or >>> less) on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but >>> our communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using >>> these categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of >>> science but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use >>> of language and more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The >>> romantic focus on an 'individual' can only ever be conducted in the >>> medium of a very un-individual language and no person's life could >>> possibly be understood without reference to relationships with other >>> persons which then spread roots and branches out to a forest of connections, causes and consequences. >>> >>> David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of theory >>> if one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case and >>> Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the >>> concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but the >>> creative sources of great historical events and the important ideas >>> and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the contribution >>> individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than >>> themselves but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want >>> neither to split living reality into its elementary components nor to >>> represent the wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that lose the properties of the phenomena themselves'. >>> >>> I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is >>> particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how >>> all minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' >>> lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory >>> associations which words bring with them in a way which, for most of >>> us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a >>> particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that every >>> person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, >>> behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface of a >>> pool of connections and associations which can never be shared with >>> or known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can >>> only go so far in understanding another person's understanding and >>> much less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone >>> is a very different thing from being able to share that knowledge in >>> a rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of the >>> spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge is >>> entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that swirl beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! >>> >>> I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what >>> lies beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young >>> children are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so >>> powerfully dominated by abstractions. >>> >>> All the best, >>> >>> Rod >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.ed >>> u >>> ] >>> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >>> Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >>> >>> Try this, in Word this time. >>> Andy >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *Andy Blunden* >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>> On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: >>> >>> ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the >>> chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST be >>> somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. >>> >>> After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas >>> seems appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended >>> essay's on his view of Romantic Science. >>> >>> It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, were >>> not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of their >>> enterprise encompassed those fields and more. >>> >>> Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual case >>> in no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their work. >>> Nor does Luria argue so. >>> >>> mike >>> ? >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg >> > wrote: >>> >>> I think the problem with this view of romantic science >>> is that it >>> completely precludes building a psychology on a >>> sociology. In that sense >>> (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist >>> at all. Vygotsky >>> certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the >>> individual case"; such >>> an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of >>> theory. I'm not sure >>> Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a >>> Shattered Mind" and >>> "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. >>> Remember the main >>> criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human >>> Conflicts" was always that >>> it was too quantitative. >>> >>> There are, of course, some areas of psychology that >>> are well studied as >>> case histories. Recently, I've been looking into >>> suicidology, and in >>> particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered >>> the linguistic >>> analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have >>> been influenced, as >>> early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work >>> on schizophrinia). >>> Now you would think that if ever there was a field >>> that would benefit from >>> total immersion in the individual case, this is one. >>> But Shneidman says >>> that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal >>> phrases, and as a >>> consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively >>> (one of his first >>> studies was simply to sort a pile of real and >>> imitation suicide notes and >>> carefully note the criteria he had when he made >>> correct judgements). And of >>> course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide >>> is that the individual >>> case can be utterly disregarded, since the great >>> variations are >>> sociological and the psychological variables all seem >>> trivial, transient, >>> or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a >>> large scale (as we must >>> these days). Shneidman says he has never read a >>> suicide note he would want >>> to have written. >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden >>> >> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: >>> >>> > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' >>> style of Romantic >>> > Science was his complete immersion in the individual >>> case before him, and >>> > development of a science of complete persons. The >>> paradigm of this type of >>> > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative >>> Science" I suppose. The >>> > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each >>> case, e.g. facial >>> > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a >>> "covering law" for just this >>> > aspect. >>> > Andy >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> > *Andy Blunden* >>> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>> < >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/> >>> > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >>> > >>> >> Mike, >>> >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that >>> naysayers were cited in >>> >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering >>> if some of that push back >>> >> was related to his practice of romantic science, >>> which, if I understand >>> >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in >>> the phenomena of >>> >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, >>> for example, immersed >>> >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His >>> writing prefigures the cell >>> >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of >>> microscopes could not confirm >>> >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner >>> and Sacks makes me >>> >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at >>> issue. Different styles >>> >> of research bring different construals. This may be >>> the bane of >>> >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really >>> make Sacks less of a >>> >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? >>> >> Henry >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole >>> >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our >>> connections with Luria and >>> >>> the fact that we >>> >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a >>> romantic science. He was a >>> >>> shy >>> >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, >>> and the difference >>> >>> between >>> >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the >>> interview with them that >>> >>> someone >>> >>> pirated on >>> >>> to youtube. >>> >>> >>> >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, >>> engaging intellectually all >>> >>> the while. >>> >>> >>> >>> mike >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin >>> >> martinl@azscience.org>> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the >>> privilege of spending an >>> >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting >>> Jerry Bruner and Carol >>> >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in for Sylvia who >>> couldn't make the dinner - it >>> >>>> was >>> >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you >>> ever hear from Bruner? I >>> >>>> wonder if he's still active. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Laura >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole >>> >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Dear Colleagues --- >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news >>> that Oliver Sacks has >>> >>>> succumbed to cancer. >>> >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. >>> >>>> mike >>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM >>> >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; >>> Neurologist and Author >>> >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks >>> >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com >> lchcmike@gmail.com> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com >>> : >>> Oliver Sacks Dies at >>> 82; Neurologist >>> >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks >>> >>>> < >>> >>>> >>> >>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL >>> 4 >>> a < >>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL >>> 4 >>> a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=144 >>> 0 >>> 972441657668®i_id=0> >>> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >>> >>>> By >>> >>>> GREGORY COWLES >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest >>> pathways in >>> >>>> best-selling >>> >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife >>> for a Hat,? achieving >>> >>>> a >>> >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. >>> >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: >>> http://nyti.ms/1LL040D >>> >>>> < >>> >>>> >>> >>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL >>> 4 >>> a < >>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL >>> 4 >>> a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=144 >>> 0 >>> 972441657668®i_id=0> >>> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >>> >>>> To >>> >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times >>> articles, subscribe today. >>> >>>> See >>> >>>> Subscription Options. >>> >>>> < >>> >>>> >>> >>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rw >>> C >>> IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869m >>> P >>> AvEGfk= >>> < >>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rw >>> C >>> IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869m >>> P >>> AvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_ >>> i >>> d=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >>> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >>> >>>> To >>> >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add >>> nytdirect@nytimes.com >> nytdirect@nytimes.com> >>> to your >>> >>>> address book. Advertisement >>> >>>> >>> >>>> < >>> >>>> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto < >>> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=sec >>> u >>> re.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&s >>> n >>> 1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=Mi >>> s >>> tressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmist >>> r >>> essamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview> >>> &opzn&page= >>> secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> Copyright 2015 >>> >>>> < >>> >>>> >>> >>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVu >>> P IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ== >>> < >>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVu >>> P >>> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd3 >>> 1 >>> 502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668& >>> r >>> egi_id=0> >>> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> | The New York Times Company >>> >>>> < >>> >>>> >>> >>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEc >>> S >>> h < >>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEc >>> S >>> h&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=144 >>> 0 >>> 972441657668®i_id=0> >>> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> -- >>> >>>> >>> >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a >>> natural science with an >>> >>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a >>> natural science with an >>> >>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an >>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] < >>> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> < >>> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> >>> >>> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely >>> for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not >>> the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the >>> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. >>> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know >>> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are >>> not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University >>> accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility >>> to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not >>> accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing >>> in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or >>> services unless accompanied by an official order form. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From smago@uga.edu Fri Sep 4 03:20:49 2015 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 10:20:49 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] FW: Special Issue L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From: Rijlaarsdam, Gert [mailto:G.C.W.Rijlaarsdam@uva.nl] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 3:49 AM To: Peter Smagorinsky Subject: Special Issue L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature Special issue in L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature Re-searching paradoxes and negotiations in Scandinavian L1 subjects. A special issue Paradoxes and Negotiations in Scandinavian L1 Research in Languages, Literatures and Literacies, guest edited by Ellen Krogh& Sylvi Penne Please find all seven papers and the introduction via http://l1.publication-archive.com/show-volume/18 Be invited to discuss papers on https://www.facebook.com/IAIMTE Reading around the text: On the diversity of reading practices in the new popular literary culture Persson, M L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, DOI: 10.17239/L1ESLL-2015.15.01.11 Voice and narrative in L1 Writing Krogh, E. & Piekut, A. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, DOI: 10.17239/L1ESLL-2015.15.01.10 Competing disciplinarities in curricular L1. A Norwegian case Ongstad, Sigmund L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, DOI: 10.17239/L1ESLL-2015.15.01.08 Writing for life? A case study of affordances of writing in four L1 upper secondary classrooms. Andersson Varga, P. & Asplund Carlsson, M. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, DOI: 10.17239/L1ESLL-2015.15.01.06 Writing education and assessment in Norway: Towards shared understanding, shared language and shared responsibility Matre, S. & Solheim, R. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, DOI: 10.17239/L1ESLL-2015.15.01.05 The L1 subject in a world of increasing individualism. Democratic paradoxes in Norwegian L1 classrooms Penne, S. & Skarstein, D. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, DOI: 10.17239/L1ESLL-2015.15.01.04 Technology in L1: A review of empirical research projects in Scandinavia 1992-2014 Elf, Nikolaj; Hangh?j, Thorkild; Skaar, H?vard & Erixon, Per-Olof L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, DOI: 10.17239/L1ESLL-2015.15.01.03 From pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu Fri Sep 4 08:15:16 2015 From: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu (Peter Feigenbaum [Staff]) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 11:15:16 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <55E8EF22.6060207@mira.net> References: <55E37E99.000004FA@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <12553216-10FA-4C70-8D8F-097266281640@gmail.com> <55E4EF7C.7090500@mira.net> <55E526CC.6080400@mira.net> <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC311027525EA@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> <55E5C259.9060101@mira.net> <000f01d0e4de$fb40b960$f1c22c20$@att.net> <001701d0e4e7$ad752be0$085f83a0$@att.net> <002501d0e58e$ee919760$cbb4c620$@att.net> <55E710F5.2020903@mira.net> <003c01d0e68d$13649340$3a2db9c0$@att.net> <55E8EF22.6060207@mira.net> Message-ID: Colleagues, I'm intrigued by Peg Griffin's introduction of the 2 x 2 matrix into this discussion for the purpose of thinking about the relationships between the concrete-abstract continuum and the particular-general continuum. What piqued my interest was the application of this particular matrix to the discussion of Sachs, Luria, and Romantic Science. Back in 2011, Steve Gabosh and I made a presentation at ISCAR using this very same matrix. Steve came up with the idea of cross-tabbing the two continuua after noting (during his careful reading of Vygotsky's *Collected Works* (in English) that Vygotsky sometimes referred to the concrete-abstract and the particular-general aspects of thinking as if they were interchangeable, but at other times referred to them as if they were denoting different qualities. To tease the qualities apart, Steve suggested we arrange them as a 2 x 2 matrix. Doing so allowed us an opportunity to explore Vygotsky's claims about concept development--with a particular focus on the claim that uneducated adults think only in complexes. Pasted below (and attached, just in case your email won't display it) is our graphic rendition of how the syncretic, complexive, preconteptual, and conceptual formations described by Vygotsky might be arrayed on this matrix. [image: Inline image 1] It never occurred to either of us that this same matrix might be a useful tool for thinking about Romantic Science and the integration of the nomothetic and the idiographic perspectives! Very creative, Peg. Peter On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > Yes, that helps, Peg. I think it is what is often called a "heuristic" - > your equivalent of Engestrom's Expanding Triangle. > Thanks! > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 4/09/2015 7:11 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > >> Andy, about what kind of tool: For me, at this time, it is a tool for >> thinking about romantic science, Sacks, and Luria. >> >> It's a tad like the problem of figure/ground illusion/perception -- >> except it's four panes instead of two. >> >> I want a tool to see if I can avoid confusing or conflating specific and >> concrete as well as confusing or conflating general and abstract. >> AND I want the tool to let me see together the dimension of >> concrete/abstract and the dimension of specific/general. >> >> In the past I have used it to help me think about genetic primary >> examples. >> I am also now about to try seeing what I need (maybe different >> dimensions altogether, maybe more than four panes) to think about genetic >> chimerism and social situations with multiple activities which are >> coexisting... >> >> In a sense, yes, my use of the tool is always diagnostic -- showing me >> what I stumble on in thinking -- and might bring a little progress >> (treatment). >> >> Just like in the figure/ground illusions you can twiddle around a bit and >> make things obvious that you couldn't "see". >> I'm attaching here some different ways you can twiddle around with the >> Johari window. >> Does that help? >> PG >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy >> Blunden >> Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 11:09 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >> >> So this is a diagnostic tool, Peg? >> Could you spell this out a little more for someone who still doesn't >> grasp what you are talking about? :) andy intrigued. >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> On 3/09/2015 12:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: >> >>> What I did not make clear is that the JoHari window is not really the >>> same as a matrix. It is a different kind of tool than I think David and >>> Peter are thinking about. >>> Here's the trick: You change the pane sizes to emphasize the one of the >>> four panes you are currently acting on -- but all four panes are always >>> there. >>> So you can make the "concrete specific" pane HUGE by moving the top >>> bottom inner divider far to the right and moving the left right inner >>> divider far to the bottom. Or you can move only one of the dividers. >>> And you can move the dividers without such extremes. >>> >>> Even if a diagnosis/treatment only does the first move I described, >>> there's little abstract involved. I don't mind that so much if the actors >>> are involved in an emergency triage activity, but without the abstract you >>> are going on observables very influenced by perceptual and cultural access >>> of the actors and you might not even have the most useful template from the >>> general to guide/evaluate your trials and errors. So you'd better shift >>> the panes pretty soon before things get way off base. >>> >>> You can also fool around with the arrangement of the terms that name the >>> panes: Do you get more out of concrete vs. specific or more out of >>> specific vs. concrete (in David's terms the anchors for the cline). Same >>> for abstract vs. concrete or concrete vs. abstract. >>> PG >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf >>> Of Peg Griffin >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:55 PM >>> To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >>> >>> As far as I understand those terms (nomothetic and idiographic), the >>> combined motor method does unite them and so arrives at dual stimulation, >>> given the non-accidental mosaic. >>> But I don't know that my understanding goes far enough or too far! >>> Peg >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf >>> Of mike cole >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:08 PM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >>> >>> Is that simultaneously uniting the nomothetic and idiographic, Peg? That >>> is the way Luria talked about it. >>> mike >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Peg Griffin >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Just in a short-hand: >>>> >>>> Concrete Specific: Zasetsky (The man with the shattered world) >>>> >>>> Concrete General: People with traumatic brain injury during WWII >>>> >>>> Abstract General: Brain is a mosaic of specific domains with actions >>>> that interact in dual stimulations (not pure will) >>>> >>>> Abstract Specific: A man acts to recall using images; it fails on a >>>> certain target. The man starts appears to abandon the recall by >>>> acting an intimately related system ? e.g., reciting the alphabet. >>>> But the recital is ?interrupted? when it bumps into the original >>>> recall target and the recall is successful. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> For diagnosis and/or treatment, we must rise to the concrete specific. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry I don?t have time to develop this further but I am sure many on >>>> this list do, and I know that Luria and Sacks did so in wondrous and >>>> glorious instances. >>>> >>>> Peg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:21 AM >>>> To: Peg Griffin; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' >>>> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Could you give an example, Peg? >>>> andy >>>> >>>> _____ >>>> >>>> *Andy Blunden* >>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>>> >>>> On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: >>>> >>>> What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and Sachs ? >>>> with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made (based >>>> on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and Harrington >>>> Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill in each of the >>>> four cells in >>>> the square about an issue of interest. It helps me think about >>>> genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. >>>> Concrete Abstract >>>> Specific >>>> General >>>> >>>> A romantic square, >>>> Peg >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>>> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rod >>>> Parker-Rees >>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM >>>> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >>>> >>>> Thanks for posting this, Andy. >>>> >>>> I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his >>>> reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his observation >>>> that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event isolated >>>> from other things or events. Its real object is to see and understand >>>> the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'. >>>> >>>> We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or >>>> less) on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but >>>> our communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using >>>> these categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of >>>> science but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use >>>> of language and more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The >>>> romantic focus on an 'individual' can only ever be conducted in the >>>> medium of a very un-individual language and no person's life could >>>> possibly be understood without reference to relationships with other >>>> persons which then spread roots and branches out to a forest of >>>> connections, causes and consequences. >>>> >>>> David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of theory >>>> if one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case and >>>> Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the >>>> concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but the >>>> creative sources of great historical events and the important ideas >>>> and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the contribution >>>> individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than >>>> themselves but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want >>>> neither to split living reality into its elementary components nor to >>>> represent the wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that >>>> lose the properties of the phenomena themselves'. >>>> >>>> I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is >>>> particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how >>>> all minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' >>>> lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory >>>> associations which words bring with them in a way which, for most of >>>> us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a >>>> particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that every >>>> person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, >>>> behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface of a >>>> pool of connections and associations which can never be shared with >>>> or known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can >>>> only go so far in understanding another person's understanding and >>>> much less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone >>>> is a very different thing from being able to share that knowledge in >>>> a rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of the >>>> spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge is >>>> entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that swirl >>>> beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! >>>> >>>> I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what >>>> lies beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young >>>> children are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so >>>> powerfully dominated by abstractions. >>>> >>>> All the best, >>>> >>>> Rod >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.ed >>>> u >>>> ] >>>> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >>>> Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >>>> >>>> Try this, in Word this time. >>>> Andy >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> *Andy Blunden* >>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>>> On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: >>>> >>>> ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the >>>> chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST be >>>> somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. >>>> >>>> After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas >>>> seems appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended >>>> essay's on his view of Romantic Science. >>>> >>>> It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, were >>>> not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of their >>>> enterprise encompassed those fields and more. >>>> >>>> Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual case >>>> in no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their work. >>>> Nor does Luria argue so. >>>> >>>> mike >>>> ? >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> I think the problem with this view of romantic science >>>> is that it >>>> completely precludes building a psychology on a >>>> sociology. In that sense >>>> (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist >>>> at all. Vygotsky >>>> certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the >>>> individual case"; such >>>> an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of >>>> theory. I'm not sure >>>> Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a >>>> Shattered Mind" and >>>> "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. >>>> Remember the main >>>> criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human >>>> Conflicts" was always that >>>> it was too quantitative. >>>> >>>> There are, of course, some areas of psychology that >>>> are well studied as >>>> case histories. Recently, I've been looking into >>>> suicidology, and in >>>> particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered >>>> the linguistic >>>> analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have >>>> been influenced, as >>>> early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work >>>> on schizophrinia). >>>> Now you would think that if ever there was a field >>>> that would benefit from >>>> total immersion in the individual case, this is one. >>>> But Shneidman says >>>> that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal >>>> phrases, and as a >>>> consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively >>>> (one of his first >>>> studies was simply to sort a pile of real and >>>> imitation suicide notes and >>>> carefully note the criteria he had when he made >>>> correct judgements). And of >>>> course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide >>>> is that the individual >>>> case can be utterly disregarded, since the great >>>> variations are >>>> sociological and the psychological variables all seem >>>> trivial, transient, >>>> or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a >>>> large scale (as we must >>>> these days). Shneidman says he has never read a >>>> suicide note he would want >>>> to have written. >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden >>>> >>> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' >>>> style of Romantic >>>> > Science was his complete immersion in the individual >>>> case before him, and >>>> > development of a science of complete persons. The >>>> paradigm of this type of >>>> > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative >>>> Science" I suppose. The >>>> > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each >>>> case, e.g. facial >>>> > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a >>>> "covering law" for just this >>>> > aspect. >>>> > Andy >>>> > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> > *Andy Blunden* >>>> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>>> < >>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/> >>>> > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Mike, >>>> >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that >>>> naysayers were cited in >>>> >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering >>>> if some of that push back >>>> >> was related to his practice of romantic science, >>>> which, if I understand >>>> >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in >>>> the phenomena of >>>> >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, >>>> for example, immersed >>>> >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His >>>> writing prefigures the cell >>>> >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of >>>> microscopes could not confirm >>>> >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner >>>> and Sacks makes me >>>> >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at >>>> issue. Different styles >>>> >> of research bring different construals. This may be >>>> the bane of >>>> >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really >>>> make Sacks less of a >>>> >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? >>>> >> Henry >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole >>>> >>>> > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our >>>> connections with Luria and >>>> >>> the fact that we >>>> >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a >>>> romantic science. He was a >>>> >>> shy >>>> >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, >>>> and the difference >>>> >>> between >>>> >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the >>>> interview with them that >>>> >>> someone >>>> >>> pirated on >>>> >>> to youtube. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, >>>> engaging intellectually all >>>> >>> the while. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> mike >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin >>>> >>> martinl@azscience.org>> >>>> >>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the >>>> privilege of spending an >>>> >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting >>>> Jerry Bruner and Carol >>>> >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in for Sylvia who >>>> couldn't make the dinner - it >>>> >>>> was >>>> >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you >>>> ever hear from Bruner? I >>>> >>>> wonder if he's still active. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Laura >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole >>>> >>>> > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Colleagues --- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news >>>> that Oliver Sacks has >>>> >>>> succumbed to cancer. >>>> >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. >>>> >>>> mike >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM >>>> >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; >>>> Neurologist and Author >>>> >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks >>>> >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com >>> lchcmike@gmail.com> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com >>>> : >>>> Oliver Sacks Dies at >>>> 82; Neurologist >>>> >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks >>>> >>>> < >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL >>>> 4 >>>> a < >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL >>>> 4 >>>> a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=144 >>>> 0 >>>> 972441657668®i_id=0> >>>> >>>> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >>>> >>>> By >>>> >>>> GREGORY COWLES >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest >>>> pathways in >>>> >>>> best-selling >>>> >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife >>>> for a Hat,? achieving >>>> >>>> a >>>> >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. >>>> >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: >>>> http://nyti.ms/1LL040D >>>> >>>> < >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL >>>> 4 >>>> a < >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL >>>> 4 >>>> a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=144 >>>> 0 >>>> 972441657668®i_id=0> >>>> >>>> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >>>> >>>> To >>>> >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times >>>> articles, subscribe today. >>>> >>>> See >>>> >>>> Subscription Options. >>>> >>>> < >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rw >>>> C >>>> IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869m >>>> P >>>> AvEGfk= >>>> < >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rw >>>> C >>>> IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869m >>>> P >>>> AvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_ >>>> i >>>> d=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >>>> >>>> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >>>> >>>> To >>>> >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add >>>> nytdirect@nytimes.com >>> nytdirect@nytimes.com> >>>> to your >>>> >>>> address book. Advertisement >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> < >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto < >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=sec >>>> u >>>> re.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&s >>>> n >>>> 1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=Mi >>>> s >>>> tressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmist >>>> r >>>> essamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview> >>>> &opzn&page= >>>> >>>> secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> Copyright 2015 >>>> >>>> < >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVu >>>> P IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ== >>>> < >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVu >>>> P >>>> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd3 >>>> 1 >>>> 502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668& >>>> r >>>> egi_id=0> >>>> >>>> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> | The New York Times Company >>>> >>>> < >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEc >>>> S >>>> h < >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEc >>>> S >>>> h&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=144 >>>> 0 >>>> 972441657668®i_id=0> >>>> >>>> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a >>>> natural science with an >>>> >>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>>> >>> >>>> >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a >>>> natural science with an >>>> >>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an >>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] < >>>> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> < >>>> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> >>>> >>>> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely >>>> for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not >>>> the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the >>>> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on >>>> it. >>>> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know >>>> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are >>>> not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University >>>> accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility >>>> to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not >>>> accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing >>>> in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or >>>> services unless accompanied by an official order form. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu -------------- next part -------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 54301 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150904/2b3ea822/attachment.png -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Gabosh_Feigenbaum_GPAC Matrix_ISCAR-Rome-2011.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 76758 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150904/2b3ea822/attachment.jpg From lpscholar2@gmail.com Fri Sep 4 09:32:50 2015 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 09:32:50 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: References: <55E37E99.000004FA@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <12553216-10FA-4C70-8D8F-097266281640@gmail.com> <55E4EF7C.7090500@mira.net> <55E526CC.6080400@mira.net> <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC311027525EA@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> <55E5C259.9060101@mira.net> <000f01d0e4de$fb40b960$f1c22c20$@att.net> <001701d0e4e7$ad752be0$085f83a0$@att.net> <002501d0e58e$ee919760$cbb4c620$@att.net> <55E710F5.2020903@mira.net> <003c01d0e68d$13649340$3a2db9c0$@att.net> <55E8EF22.6060207@mira.net> Message-ID: <55e9c7e2.4410460a.b1572.ffff859b@mx.google.com> Mike and Peg wrote an article (Cultural Amplifiers Reconsidered) where Shweder is referenced to show that when information is presented in a 2x2 table so that the data were simultaneously available THEN correct inferences almost always occurred. So Shweder concludes most adults have the Capacity to think correlationally buy are not "likely" to do so. This shows the application of the grid confuses "likelihood" and "correlation" which contributes to what Shweder terms "magical" thinking which indicates a particular character. Peg and Mike's question is: "Why correlational thinking is not CHARACTERISTIC of everyday life thinking of educated adults who "have" the CAPACITY. -----Original Message----- From: "Peter Feigenbaum [Staff]" Sent: ?2015-?09-?04 8:19 AM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science Colleagues, I'm intrigued by Peg Griffin's introduction of the 2 x 2 matrix into this discussion for the purpose of thinking about the relationships between the concrete-abstract continuum and the particular-general continuum. What piqued my interest was the application of this particular matrix to the discussion of Sachs, Luria, and Romantic Science. Back in 2011, Steve Gabosh and I made a presentation at ISCAR using this very same matrix. Steve came up with the idea of cross-tabbing the two continuua after noting (during his careful reading of Vygotsky's *Collected Works* (in English) that Vygotsky sometimes referred to the concrete-abstract and the particular-general aspects of thinking as if they were interchangeable, but at other times referred to them as if they were denoting different qualities. To tease the qualities apart, Steve suggested we arrange them as a 2 x 2 matrix. Doing so allowed us an opportunity to explore Vygotsky's claims about concept development--with a particular focus on the claim that uneducated adults think only in complexes. Pasted below (and attached, just in case your email won't display it) is our graphic rendition of how the syncretic, complexive, preconteptual, and conceptual formations described by Vygotsky might be arrayed on this matrix. [image: Inline image 1] It never occurred to either of us that this same matrix might be a useful tool for thinking about Romantic Science and the integration of the nomothetic and the idiographic perspectives! Very creative, Peg. Peter On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > Yes, that helps, Peg. I think it is what is often called a "heuristic" - > your equivalent of Engestrom's Expanding Triangle. > Thanks! > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 4/09/2015 7:11 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > >> Andy, about what kind of tool: For me, at this time, it is a tool for >> thinking about romantic science, Sacks, and Luria. >> >> It's a tad like the problem of figure/ground illusion/perception -- >> except it's four panes instead of two. >> >> I want a tool to see if I can avoid confusing or conflating specific and >> concrete as well as confusing or conflating general and abstract. >> AND I want the tool to let me see together the dimension of >> concrete/abstract and the dimension of specific/general. >> >> In the past I have used it to help me think about genetic primary >> examples. >> I am also now about to try seeing what I need (maybe different >> dimensions altogether, maybe more than four panes) to think about genetic >> chimerism and social situations with multiple activities which are >> coexisting... >> >> In a sense, yes, my use of the tool is always diagnostic -- showing me >> what I stumble on in thinking -- and might bring a little progress >> (treatment). >> >> Just like in the figure/ground illusions you can twiddle around a bit and >> make things obvious that you couldn't "see". >> I'm attaching here some different ways you can twiddle around with the >> Johari window. >> Does that help? >> PG >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy >> Blunden >> Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 11:09 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >> >> So this is a diagnostic tool, Peg? >> Could you spell this out a little more for someone who still doesn't >> grasp what you are talking about? :) andy intrigued. >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> On 3/09/2015 12:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: >> >>> What I did not make clear is that the JoHari window is not really the >>> same as a matrix. It is a different kind of tool than I think David and >>> Peter are thinking about. >>> Here's the trick: You change the pane sizes to emphasize the one of the >>> four panes you are currently acting on -- but all four panes are always >>> there. >>> So you can make the "concrete specific" pane HUGE by moving the top >>> bottom inner divider far to the right and moving the left right inner >>> divider far to the bottom. Or you can move only one of the dividers. >>> And you can move the dividers without such extremes. >>> >>> Even if a diagnosis/treatment only does the first move I described, >>> there's little abstract involved. I don't mind that so much if the actors >>> are involved in an emergency triage activity, but without the abstract you >>> are going on observables very influenced by perceptual and cultural access >>> of the actors and you might not even have the most useful template from the >>> general to guide/evaluate your trials and errors. So you'd better shift >>> the panes pretty soon before things get way off base. >>> >>> You can also fool around with the arrangement of the terms that name the >>> panes: Do you get more out of concrete vs. specific or more out of >>> specific vs. concrete (in David's terms the anchors for the cline). Same >>> for abstract vs. concrete or concrete vs. abstract. >>> PG >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf >>> Of Peg Griffin >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:55 PM >>> To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >>> >>> As far as I understand those terms (nomothetic and idiographic), the >>> combined motor method does unite them and so arrives at dual stimulation, >>> given the non-accidental mosaic. >>> But I don't know that my understanding goes far enough or too far! >>> Peg >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf >>> Of mike cole >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:08 PM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >>> >>> Is that simultaneously uniting the nomothetic and idiographic, Peg? That >>> is the way Luria talked about it. >>> mike >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Peg Griffin >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Just in a short-hand: >>>> >>>> Concrete Specific: Zasetsky (The man with the shattered world) >>>> >>>> Concrete General: People with traumatic brain injury during WWII >>>> >>>> Abstract General: Brain is a mosaic of specific domains with actions >>>> that interact in dual stimulations (not pure will) >>>> >>>> Abstract Specific: A man acts to recall using images; it fails on a >>>> certain target. The man starts appears to abandon the recall by >>>> acting an intimately related system ? e.g., reciting the alphabet. >>>> But the recital is ?interrupted? when it bumps into the original >>>> recall target and the recall is successful. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> For diagnosis and/or treatment, we must rise to the concrete specific. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry I don?t have time to develop this further but I am sure many on >>>> this list do, and I know that Luria and Sacks did so in wondrous and >>>> glorious instances. >>>> >>>> Peg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:21 AM >>>> To: Peg Griffin; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' >>>> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Could you give an example, Peg? >>>> andy >>>> >>>> _____ >>>> >>>> *Andy Blunden* >>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>>> >>>> On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: >>>> >>>> What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and Sachs ? >>>> with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made (based >>>> on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and Harrington >>>> Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill in each of the >>>> four cells in >>>> the square about an issue of interest. It helps me think about >>>> genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. >>>> Concrete Abstract >>>> Specific >>>> General >>>> >>>> A romantic square, >>>> Peg >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>>> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rod >>>> Parker-Rees >>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM >>>> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >>>> >>>> Thanks for posting this, Andy. >>>> >>>> I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his >>>> reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his observation >>>> that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event isolated >>>> from other things or events. Its real object is to see and understand >>>> the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'. >>>> >>>> We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or >>>> less) on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but >>>> our communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using >>>> these categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of >>>> science but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use >>>> of language and more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The >>>> romantic focus on an 'individual' can only ever be conducted in the >>>> medium of a very un-individual language and no person's life could >>>> possibly be understood without reference to relationships with other >>>> persons which then spread roots and branches out to a forest of >>>> connections, causes and consequences. >>>> >>>> David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of theory >>>> if one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case and >>>> Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the >>>> concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but the >>>> creative sources of great historical events and the important ideas >>>> and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the contribution >>>> individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than >>>> themselves but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want >>>> neither to split living reality into its elementary components nor to >>>> represent the wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that >>>> lose the properties of the phenomena themselves'. >>>> >>>> I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is >>>> particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how >>>> all minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' >>>> lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory >>>> associations which words bring with them in a way which, for most of >>>> us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a >>>> particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that every >>>> person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, >>>> behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface of a >>>> pool of connections and associations which can never be shared with >>>> or known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can >>>> only go so far in understanding another person's understanding and >>>> much less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone >>>> is a very different thing from being able to share that knowledge in >>>> a rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of the >>>> spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge is >>>> entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that swirl >>>> beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! >>>> >>>> I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what >>>> lies beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young >>>> children are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so >>>> powerfully dominated by abstractions. >>>> >>>> All the best, >>>> >>>> Rod >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.ed >>>> u >>>> ] >>>> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >>>> Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >>>> >>>> Try this, in Word this time. >>>> Andy >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> *Andy Blunden* >>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>>> On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: >>>> >>>> ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the >>>> chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST be >>>> somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. >>>> >>>> After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas >>>> seems appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended >>>> essay's on his view of Romantic Science. >>>> >>>> It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, were >>>> not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of their >>>> enterprise encompassed those fields and more. >>>> >>>> Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual case >>>> in no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their work. >>>> Nor does Luria argue so. >>>> >>>> mike >>>> ? >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> I think the problem with this view of romantic science >>>> is that it >>>> completely precludes building a psychology on a >>>> sociology. In that sense >>>> (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist >>>> at all. Vygotsky >>>> certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the >>>> individual case"; such >>>> an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of >>>> theory. I'm not sure >>>> Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a >>>> Shattered Mind" and >>>> "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. >>>> Remember the main >>>> criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human >>>> Conflicts" was always that >>>> it was too quantitative. >>>> >>>> There are, of course, some areas of psychology that >>>> are well studied as >>>> case histories. Recently, I've been looking into >>>> suicidology, and in >>>> particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered >>>> the linguistic >>>> analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have >>>> been influenced, as >>>> early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work >>>> on schizophrinia). >>>> Now you would think that if ever there was a field >>>> that would benefit from >>>> total immersion in the individual case, this is one. >>>> But Shneidman says >>>> that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal >>>> phrases, and as a >>>> consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively >>>> (one of his first >>>> studies was simply to sort a pile of real and >>>> imitation suicide notes and >>>> carefully note the criteria he had when he made >>>> correct judgements). And of >>>> course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide >>>> is that the individual >>>> case can be utterly disregarded, since the great >>>> variations are >>>> sociological and the psychological variables all seem >>>> trivial, transient, >>>> or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a >>>> large scale (as we must >>>> these days). Shneidman says he has never read a >>>> suicide note he would want >>>> to have written. >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden >>>> >>> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' >>>> style of Romantic >>>> > Science was his complete immersion in the individual >>>> case before him, and >>>> > development of a science of complete persons. The >>>> paradigm of this type of >>>> > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative >>>> Science" I suppose. The >>>> > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each >>>> case, e.g. facial >>>> > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a >>>> "covering law" for just this >>>> > aspect. >>>> > Andy >>>> > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> > *Andy Blunden* >>>> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>>> < >>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/> >>>> > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Mike, >>>> >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that >>>> naysayers were cited in >>>> >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering >>>> if some of that push back >>>> >> was related to his practice of romantic science, >>>> which, if I understand >>>> >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in >>>> the phenomena of >>>> >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, >>>> for example, immersed >>>> >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His >>>> writing prefigures the cell >>>> >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of >>>> microscopes could not confirm >>>> >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner >>>> and Sacks makes me >>>> >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at >>>> issue. Different styles >>>> >> of research bring different construals. This may be >>>> the bane of >>>> >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really >>>> make Sacks less of a >>>> >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? >>>> >> Henry >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole >>>> >>>> > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our >>>> connections with Luria and >>>> >>> the fact that we >>>> >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a >>>> romantic science. He was a >>>> >>> shy >>>> >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, >>>> and the difference >>>> >>> between >>>> >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the >>>> interview with them that >>>> >>> someone >>>> >>> pirated on >>>> >>> to youtube. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, >>>> engaging intellectually all >>>> >>> the while. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> mike >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin >>>> >>> martinl@azscience.org>> >>>> >>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the >>>> privilege of spending an >>>> >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting >>>> Jerry Bruner and Carol >>>> >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in fo [The entire original message is not included.] From Peg.Griffin@att.net Fri Sep 4 09:47:31 2015 From: Peg.Griffin@att.net (Peg Griffin) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 12:47:31 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: References: <55E37E99.000004FA@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <12553216-10FA-4C70-8D8F-097266281640@gmail.com> <55E4EF7C.7090500@mira.net> <55E526CC.6080400@mira.net> <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC311027525EA@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> <55E5C259.9060101@mira.net> <000f01d0e4de$fb40b960$f1c22c20$@att.net> <001701d0e4e7$ad752be0$085f83a0$@att.net> <002501d0e58e$ee919760$cbb4c620$@att.net> <55E710F5.2020903@mira.net> <003c01d0e68d$13649340$3a2db9c0$@att.net> <55E8EF22.6060207@mira.net> Message-ID: <006001d0e731$648c8990$2da59cb0$@att.net> Thanks for bringing in the work you and Steve Gabosh did, Peter, and for the attachment. It make me wish I had been at the conference. Is there a publication or other trace of the work that I could look for? PG -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 11:15 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science Colleagues, I'm intrigued by Peg Griffin's introduction of the 2 x 2 matrix into this discussion for the purpose of thinking about the relationships between the concrete-abstract continuum and the particular-general continuum. What piqued my interest was the application of this particular matrix to the discussion of Sachs, Luria, and Romantic Science. Back in 2011, Steve Gabosh and I made a presentation at ISCAR using this very same matrix. Steve came up with the idea of cross-tabbing the two continuua after noting (during his careful reading of Vygotsky's *Collected Works* (in English) that Vygotsky sometimes referred to the concrete-abstract and the particular-general aspects of thinking as if they were interchangeable, but at other times referred to them as if they were denoting different qualities. To tease the qualities apart, Steve suggested we arrange them as a 2 x 2 matrix. Doing so allowed us an opportunity to explore Vygotsky's claims about concept development--with a particular focus on the claim that uneducated adults think only in complexes. Pasted below (and attached, just in case your email won't display it) is our graphic rendition of how the syncretic, complexive, preconteptual, and conceptual formations described by Vygotsky might be arrayed on this matrix. [image: Inline image 1] It never occurred to either of us that this same matrix might be a useful tool for thinking about Romantic Science and the integration of the nomothetic and the idiographic perspectives! Very creative, Peg. Peter On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > Yes, that helps, Peg. I think it is what is often called a "heuristic" > - your equivalent of Engestrom's Expanding Triangle. > Thanks! > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 4/09/2015 7:11 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > >> Andy, about what kind of tool: For me, at this time, it is a tool >> for thinking about romantic science, Sacks, and Luria. >> >> It's a tad like the problem of figure/ground illusion/perception -- >> except it's four panes instead of two. >> >> I want a tool to see if I can avoid confusing or conflating specific >> and concrete as well as confusing or conflating general and abstract. >> AND I want the tool to let me see together the dimension of >> concrete/abstract and the dimension of specific/general. >> >> In the past I have used it to help me think about genetic primary >> examples. >> I am also now about to try seeing what I need (maybe different >> dimensions altogether, maybe more than four panes) to think about >> genetic chimerism and social situations with multiple activities >> which are coexisting... >> >> In a sense, yes, my use of the tool is always diagnostic -- showing >> me what I stumble on in thinking -- and might bring a little progress >> (treatment). >> >> Just like in the figure/ground illusions you can twiddle around a bit >> and make things obvious that you couldn't "see". >> I'm attaching here some different ways you can twiddle around with >> the Johari window. >> Does that help? >> PG >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of >> xmca-l-bounces+Andy >> Blunden >> Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 11:09 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >> >> So this is a diagnostic tool, Peg? >> Could you spell this out a little more for someone who still doesn't >> grasp what you are talking about? :) andy intrigued. >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> On 3/09/2015 12:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: >> >>> What I did not make clear is that the JoHari window is not really >>> the same as a matrix. It is a different kind of tool than I think >>> David and Peter are thinking about. >>> Here's the trick: You change the pane sizes to emphasize the one of >>> the four panes you are currently acting on -- but all four panes are >>> always there. >>> So you can make the "concrete specific" pane HUGE by moving the top >>> bottom inner divider far to the right and moving the left right inner >>> divider far to the bottom. Or you can move only one of the dividers. >>> And you can move the dividers without such extremes. >>> >>> Even if a diagnosis/treatment only does the first move I described, >>> there's little abstract involved. I don't mind that so much if the >>> actors are involved in an emergency triage activity, but without the >>> abstract you are going on observables very influenced by perceptual >>> and cultural access of the actors and you might not even have the >>> most useful template from the general to guide/evaluate your trials >>> and errors. So you'd better shift the panes pretty soon before things get way off base. >>> >>> You can also fool around with the arrangement of the terms that name >>> the >>> panes: Do you get more out of concrete vs. specific or more out of >>> specific vs. concrete (in David's terms the anchors for the cline). >>> Same for abstract vs. concrete or concrete vs. abstract. >>> PG >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On >>> Behalf Of Peg Griffin >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:55 PM >>> To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >>> >>> As far as I understand those terms (nomothetic and idiographic), the >>> combined motor method does unite them and so arrives at dual >>> stimulation, given the non-accidental mosaic. >>> But I don't know that my understanding goes far enough or too far! >>> Peg >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On >>> Behalf Of mike cole >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:08 PM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >>> >>> Is that simultaneously uniting the nomothetic and idiographic, Peg? >>> That is the way Luria talked about it. >>> mike >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Peg Griffin >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Just in a short-hand: >>>> >>>> Concrete Specific: Zasetsky (The man with the shattered world) >>>> >>>> Concrete General: People with traumatic brain injury during WWII >>>> >>>> Abstract General: Brain is a mosaic of specific domains with >>>> actions that interact in dual stimulations (not pure will) >>>> >>>> Abstract Specific: A man acts to recall using images; it fails on >>>> a certain target. The man starts appears to abandon the recall by >>>> acting an intimately related system ? e.g., reciting the alphabet. >>>> But the recital is ?interrupted? when it bumps into the original >>>> recall target and the recall is successful. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> For diagnosis and/or treatment, we must rise to the concrete specific. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry I don?t have time to develop this further but I am sure many >>>> on this list do, and I know that Luria and Sacks did so in wondrous >>>> and glorious instances. >>>> >>>> Peg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:21 AM >>>> To: Peg Griffin; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' >>>> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Could you give an example, Peg? >>>> andy >>>> >>>> _____ >>>> >>>> *Andy Blunden* >>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>>> >>>> On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: >>>> >>>> What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and Sachs >>>> ? with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made >>>> (based on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and >>>> Harrington Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill >>>> in each of the four cells in >>>> the square about an issue of interest. It helps me think about >>>> genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. >>>> Concrete Abstract >>>> Specific >>>> General >>>> >>>> A romantic square, >>>> Peg >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>>> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of >>>> xmca-l-bounces+Rod >>>> Parker-Rees >>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM >>>> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >>>> >>>> Thanks for posting this, Andy. >>>> >>>> I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his >>>> reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his observation >>>> that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event >>>> isolated from other things or events. Its real object is to see and >>>> understand the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'. >>>> >>>> We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or >>>> less) on ways of organising experience into shareable categories >>>> but our communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of >>>> using these categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic >>>> branches of science but he also acknowledges the differences >>>> between 'poetic' use of language and more routine, formulaic forms >>>> of communication. The romantic focus on an 'individual' can only >>>> ever be conducted in the medium of a very un-individual language >>>> and no person's life could possibly be understood without reference >>>> to relationships with other persons which then spread roots and >>>> branches out to a forest of connections, causes and consequences. >>>> >>>> David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of theory >>>> if one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case >>>> and Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the >>>> concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but >>>> the creative sources of great historical events and the important >>>> ideas and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the >>>> contribution individuals make to something bigger and more enduring >>>> than themselves but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science >>>> want neither to split living reality into its elementary components >>>> nor to represent the wealth of life's concrete events in abstract >>>> models that lose the properties of the phenomena themselves'. >>>> >>>> I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is >>>> particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how >>>> all minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' >>>> lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory >>>> associations which words bring with them in a way which, for most >>>> of us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a >>>> particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that every >>>> person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, >>>> behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface of a >>>> pool of connections and associations which can never be shared with >>>> or known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can >>>> only go so far in understanding another person's understanding and >>>> much less far in communicating that to other people (knowing >>>> someone is a very different thing from being able to share that >>>> knowledge in a rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the >>>> other side of the spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that >>>> their knowledge is entirely pure and untainted by the personal >>>> associations that swirl beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! >>>> >>>> I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what >>>> lies beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young >>>> children are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so >>>> powerfully dominated by abstractions. >>>> >>>> All the best, >>>> >>>> Rod >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: >>>> xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd. >>>> ed >>>> u >>>> ] >>>> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >>>> Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >>>> >>>> Try this, in Word this time. >>>> Andy >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> *Andy Blunden* >>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>>> On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: >>>> >>>> ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the >>>> chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST >>>> be somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. >>>> >>>> After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas >>>> seems appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of >>>> extended essay's on his view of Romantic Science. >>>> >>>> It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, >>>> were not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of >>>> their enterprise encompassed those fields and more. >>>> >>>> Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual case >>>> in no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their work. >>>> Nor does Luria argue so. >>>> >>>> mike >>>> ? >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> I think the problem with this view of romantic science >>>> is that it >>>> completely precludes building a psychology on a >>>> sociology. In that sense >>>> (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist >>>> at all. Vygotsky >>>> certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the >>>> individual case"; such >>>> an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of >>>> theory. I'm not sure >>>> Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a >>>> Shattered Mind" and >>>> "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. >>>> Remember the main >>>> criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human >>>> Conflicts" was always that >>>> it was too quantitative. >>>> >>>> There are, of course, some areas of psychology that >>>> are well studied as >>>> case histories. Recently, I've been looking into >>>> suicidology, and in >>>> particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered >>>> the linguistic >>>> analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have >>>> been influenced, as >>>> early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work >>>> on schizophrinia). >>>> Now you would think that if ever there was a field >>>> that would benefit from >>>> total immersion in the individual case, this is one. >>>> But Shneidman says >>>> that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal >>>> phrases, and as a >>>> consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively >>>> (one of his first >>>> studies was simply to sort a pile of real and >>>> imitation suicide notes and >>>> carefully note the criteria he had when he made >>>> correct judgements). And of >>>> course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide >>>> is that the individual >>>> case can be utterly disregarded, since the great >>>> variations are >>>> sociological and the psychological variables all seem >>>> trivial, transient, >>>> or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a >>>> large scale (as we must >>>> these days). Shneidman says he has never read a >>>> suicide note he would want >>>> to have written. >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden >>>> >>> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' >>>> style of Romantic >>>> > Science was his complete immersion in the individual >>>> case before him, and >>>> > development of a science of complete persons. The >>>> paradigm of this type of >>>> > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative >>>> Science" I suppose. The >>>> > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each >>>> case, e.g. facial >>>> > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a >>>> "covering law" for just this >>>> > aspect. >>>> > Andy >>>> > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> > *Andy Blunden* >>>> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>>> < >>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/> >>>> > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Mike, >>>> >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that >>>> naysayers were cited in >>>> >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering >>>> if some of that push back >>>> >> was related to his practice of romantic science, >>>> which, if I understand >>>> >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in >>>> the phenomena of >>>> >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, >>>> for example, immersed >>>> >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His >>>> writing prefigures the cell >>>> >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of >>>> microscopes could not confirm >>>> >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner >>>> and Sacks makes me >>>> >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at >>>> issue. Different styles >>>> >> of research bring different construals. This may be >>>> the bane of >>>> >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really >>>> make Sacks less of a >>>> >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? >>>> >> Henry >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole >>>> >>>> > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our >>>> connections with Luria and >>>> >>> the fact that we >>>> >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a >>>> romantic science. He was a >>>> >>> shy >>>> >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, >>>> and the difference >>>> >>> between >>>> >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the >>>> interview with them that >>>> >>> someone >>>> >>> pirated on >>>> >>> to youtube. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, >>>> engaging intellectually all >>>> >>> the while. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> mike >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin >>>> >>> martinl@azscience.org>> >>>> >>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the >>>> privilege of spending an >>>> >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting >>>> Jerry Bruner and Carol >>>> >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in for Sylvia who >>>> couldn't make the dinner - it >>>> >>>> was >>>> >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you >>>> ever hear from Bruner? I >>>> >>>> wonder if he's still active. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Laura >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole >>>> >>>> > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Colleagues --- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news >>>> that Oliver Sacks has >>>> >>>> succumbed to cancer. >>>> >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. >>>> >>>> mike >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM >>>> >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; >>>> Neurologist and Author >>>> >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks >>>> >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com >>> lchcmike@gmail.com> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com >>>> : >>>> Oliver Sacks Dies at >>>> 82; Neurologist >>>> >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks >>>> >>>> < >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbej >>>> xL >>>> 4 >>>> a < >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbej >>>> xL >>>> 4 >>>> a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1 >>>> 44 >>>> 0 >>>> 972441657668®i_id=0> >>>> >>>> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >>>> >>>> By >>>> >>>> GREGORY COWLES >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest >>>> pathways in >>>> >>>> best-selling >>>> >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife >>>> for a Hat,? achieving >>>> >>>> a >>>> >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. >>>> >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: >>>> http://nyti.ms/1LL040D >>>> >>>> < >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbej >>>> xL >>>> 4 >>>> a < >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbej >>>> xL >>>> 4 >>>> a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1 >>>> 44 >>>> 0 >>>> 972441657668®i_id=0> >>>> >>>> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >>>> >>>> To >>>> >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times >>>> articles, subscribe today. >>>> >>>> See >>>> >>>> Subscription Options. >>>> >>>> < >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7 >>>> rw >>>> C >>>> IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK86 >>>> 9m >>>> P >>>> AvEGfk= >>>> < >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7 >>>> rw >>>> C >>>> IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK86 >>>> 9m >>>> P >>>> AvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&tas >>>> k_ >>>> i >>>> d=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >>>> >>>> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >>>> >>>> To >>>> >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add >>>> nytdirect@nytimes.com >>> nytdirect@nytimes.com> >>>> to your >>>> >>>> address book. Advertisement >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> < >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto < >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=s >>>> ec >>>> u >>>> re.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264 >>>> &s >>>> n >>>> 1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad= >>>> Mi >>>> s >>>> tressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmi >>>> st >>>> r >>>> essamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview> >>>> &opzn&page= >>>> >>>> secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> Copyright 2015 >>>> >>>> < >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhW >>>> Vu P IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ== >>>> < >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhW >>>> Vu >>>> P >>>> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=b >>>> d3 >>>> 1 >>>> 502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=144097244165766 >>>> 8& >>>> r >>>> egi_id=0> >>>> >>>> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> | The New York Times Company >>>> >>>> < >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQ >>>> Ec >>>> S >>>> h < >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQ >>>> Ec >>>> S >>>> h&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1 >>>> 44 >>>> 0 >>>> 972441657668®i_id=0> >>>> >>>> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a >>>> natural science with an >>>> >>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>>> >>> >>>> >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a >>>> natural science with an >>>> >>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with >>>> an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] < >>>> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> < >>>> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> >>>> >>>> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended >>>> solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you >>>> are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other >>>> use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you >>>> should not rely on it. >>>> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know >>>> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are >>>> not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth >>>> University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your >>>> responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth >>>> University does not accept responsibility for any changes made >>>> after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments >>>> constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu From pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu Fri Sep 4 12:40:49 2015 From: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu (Peter Feigenbaum [Staff]) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 15:40:49 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <006001d0e731$648c8990$2da59cb0$@att.net> References: <55E37E99.000004FA@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <12553216-10FA-4C70-8D8F-097266281640@gmail.com> <55E4EF7C.7090500@mira.net> <55E526CC.6080400@mira.net> <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC311027525EA@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> <55E5C259.9060101@mira.net> <000f01d0e4de$fb40b960$f1c22c20$@att.net> <001701d0e4e7$ad752be0$085f83a0$@att.net> <002501d0e58e$ee919760$cbb4c620$@att.net> <55E710F5.2020903@mira.net> <003c01d0e68d$13649340$3a2db9c0$@att.net> <55E8EF22.6060207@mira.net> <006001d0e731$648c8990$2da59cb0$@att.net> Message-ID: Peg, At your request, I've attached the text and slide show that Steve and I presented at ISCAR. The paper we presented was entitled "A Proposed Methodological Tool For Exploring and Expanding Vygotsky?s Theory of Concept Formation". It should be noted that Steve was the driving force behind this work. He authored the hypothesis about the existence of a "practical concept" that is a systematic, true concept. In retrospect, my contribution regarding the "topicalizing" and "commenting" functions of verbal thinking seems wildly out of place. Moreover, how any of these ideas might relate to Romantic Science is difficult to imagine! Peter On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Peg Griffin wrote: > Thanks for bringing in the work you and Steve Gabosh did, Peter, and for > the attachment. It make me wish I had been at the conference. Is there a > publication or other trace of the work that I could look for? > PG > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Peter > Feigenbaum [Staff] > Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 11:15 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > Colleagues, > > I'm intrigued by Peg Griffin's introduction of the 2 x 2 matrix into this > discussion for the purpose of thinking about the relationships between the > concrete-abstract continuum and the particular-general continuum. What > piqued my interest was the application of this particular matrix to the > discussion of Sachs, Luria, and Romantic Science. > > Back in 2011, Steve Gabosh and I made a presentation at ISCAR using this > very same matrix. Steve came up with the idea of cross-tabbing the two > continuua after noting (during his careful reading of Vygotsky's *Collected > Works* (in English) that Vygotsky sometimes referred to the > concrete-abstract and the particular-general aspects of thinking as if they > were interchangeable, but at other times referred to them as if they were > denoting different qualities. To tease the qualities apart, Steve suggested > we arrange them as a 2 x 2 matrix. Doing so allowed us an opportunity to > explore Vygotsky's claims about concept development--with a particular > focus on the claim that uneducated adults think only in complexes. Pasted > below (and attached, just in case your email won't display it) is our > graphic rendition of how the syncretic, complexive, preconteptual, and > conceptual formations described by Vygotsky might be arrayed on this matrix. > > > [image: Inline image 1] > > It never occurred to either of us that this same matrix might be a useful > tool for thinking about Romantic Science and the integration of the > nomothetic and the idiographic perspectives! > > Very creative, Peg. > > Peter > > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > Yes, that helps, Peg. I think it is what is often called a "heuristic" > > - your equivalent of Engestrom's Expanding Triangle. > > Thanks! > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > On 4/09/2015 7:11 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > > > >> Andy, about what kind of tool: For me, at this time, it is a tool > >> for thinking about romantic science, Sacks, and Luria. > >> > >> It's a tad like the problem of figure/ground illusion/perception -- > >> except it's four panes instead of two. > >> > >> I want a tool to see if I can avoid confusing or conflating specific > >> and concrete as well as confusing or conflating general and abstract. > >> AND I want the tool to let me see together the dimension of > >> concrete/abstract and the dimension of specific/general. > >> > >> In the past I have used it to help me think about genetic primary > >> examples. > >> I am also now about to try seeing what I need (maybe different > >> dimensions altogether, maybe more than four panes) to think about > >> genetic chimerism and social situations with multiple activities > >> which are coexisting... > >> > >> In a sense, yes, my use of the tool is always diagnostic -- showing > >> me what I stumble on in thinking -- and might bring a little progress > >> (treatment). > >> > >> Just like in the figure/ground illusions you can twiddle around a bit > >> and make things obvious that you couldn't "see". > >> I'm attaching here some different ways you can twiddle around with > >> the Johari window. > >> Does that help? > >> PG > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > >> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of > >> xmca-l-bounces+Andy > >> Blunden > >> Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 11:09 AM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > >> > >> So this is a diagnostic tool, Peg? > >> Could you spell this out a little more for someone who still doesn't > >> grasp what you are talking about? :) andy intrigued. > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> *Andy Blunden* > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > >> On 3/09/2015 12:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > >> > >>> What I did not make clear is that the JoHari window is not really > >>> the same as a matrix. It is a different kind of tool than I think > >>> David and Peter are thinking about. > >>> Here's the trick: You change the pane sizes to emphasize the one of > >>> the four panes you are currently acting on -- but all four panes are > >>> always there. > >>> So you can make the "concrete specific" pane HUGE by moving the top > >>> bottom inner divider far to the right and moving the left right inner > >>> divider far to the bottom. Or you can move only one of the dividers. > >>> And you can move the dividers without such extremes. > >>> > >>> Even if a diagnosis/treatment only does the first move I described, > >>> there's little abstract involved. I don't mind that so much if the > >>> actors are involved in an emergency triage activity, but without the > >>> abstract you are going on observables very influenced by perceptual > >>> and cultural access of the actors and you might not even have the > >>> most useful template from the general to guide/evaluate your trials > >>> and errors. So you'd better shift the panes pretty soon before things > get way off base. > >>> > >>> You can also fool around with the arrangement of the terms that name > >>> the > >>> panes: Do you get more out of concrete vs. specific or more out of > >>> specific vs. concrete (in David's terms the anchors for the cline). > >>> Same for abstract vs. concrete or concrete vs. abstract. > >>> PG > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu > >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On > >>> Behalf Of Peg Griffin > >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:55 PM > >>> To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > >>> > >>> As far as I understand those terms (nomothetic and idiographic), the > >>> combined motor method does unite them and so arrives at dual > >>> stimulation, given the non-accidental mosaic. > >>> But I don't know that my understanding goes far enough or too far! > >>> Peg > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu > >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On > >>> Behalf Of mike cole > >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:08 PM > >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > >>> > >>> Is that simultaneously uniting the nomothetic and idiographic, Peg? > >>> That is the way Luria talked about it. > >>> mike > >>> > >>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Peg Griffin > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> Just in a short-hand: > >>>> > >>>> Concrete Specific: Zasetsky (The man with the shattered world) > >>>> > >>>> Concrete General: People with traumatic brain injury during WWII > >>>> > >>>> Abstract General: Brain is a mosaic of specific domains with > >>>> actions that interact in dual stimulations (not pure will) > >>>> > >>>> Abstract Specific: A man acts to recall using images; it fails on > >>>> a certain target. The man starts appears to abandon the recall by > >>>> acting an intimately related system ? e.g., reciting the alphabet. > >>>> But the recital is ?interrupted? when it bumps into the original > >>>> recall target and the recall is successful. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> For diagnosis and/or treatment, we must rise to the concrete specific. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Sorry I don?t have time to develop this further but I am sure many > >>>> on this list do, and I know that Luria and Sacks did so in wondrous > >>>> and glorious instances. > >>>> > >>>> Peg > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net] > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:21 AM > >>>> To: Peg Griffin; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > >>>> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Could you give an example, Peg? > >>>> andy > >>>> > >>>> _____ > >>>> > >>>> *Andy Blunden* > >>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > >>>> > >>>> On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > >>>> > >>>> What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and Sachs > >>>> ? with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made > >>>> (based on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and > >>>> Harrington Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill > >>>> in each of the four cells in > >>>> the square about an issue of interest. It helps me think about > >>>> genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. > >>>> Concrete Abstract > >>>> Specific > >>>> General > >>>> > >>>> A romantic square, > >>>> Peg > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > >>>> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of > >>>> xmca-l-bounces+Rod > >>>> Parker-Rees > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM > >>>> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for posting this, Andy. > >>>> > >>>> I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his > >>>> reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his observation > >>>> that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event > >>>> isolated from other things or events. Its real object is to see and > >>>> understand the way a thing or event relates to other things or > events'. > >>>> > >>>> We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or > >>>> less) on ways of organising experience into shareable categories > >>>> but our communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of > >>>> using these categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic > >>>> branches of science but he also acknowledges the differences > >>>> between 'poetic' use of language and more routine, formulaic forms > >>>> of communication. The romantic focus on an 'individual' can only > >>>> ever be conducted in the medium of a very un-individual language > >>>> and no person's life could possibly be understood without reference > >>>> to relationships with other persons which then spread roots and > >>>> branches out to a forest of connections, causes and consequences. > >>>> > >>>> David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of theory > >>>> if one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case > >>>> and Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the > >>>> concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but > >>>> the creative sources of great historical events and the important > >>>> ideas and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the > >>>> contribution individuals make to something bigger and more enduring > >>>> than themselves but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science > >>>> want neither to split living reality into its elementary components > >>>> nor to represent the wealth of life's concrete events in abstract > >>>> models that lose the properties of the phenomena themselves'. > >>>> > >>>> I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is > >>>> particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how > >>>> all minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' > >>>> lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory > >>>> associations which words bring with them in a way which, for most > >>>> of us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a > >>>> particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that every > >>>> person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, > >>>> behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface of a > >>>> pool of connections and associations which can never be shared with > >>>> or known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can > >>>> only go so far in understanding another person's understanding and > >>>> much less far in communicating that to other people (knowing > >>>> someone is a very different thing from being able to share that > >>>> knowledge in a rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the > >>>> other side of the spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that > >>>> their knowledge is entirely pure and untainted by the personal > >>>> associations that swirl beneath the limens of their knowing are just > inventing stories! > >>>> > >>>> I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what > >>>> lies beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young > >>>> children are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so > >>>> powerfully dominated by abstractions. > >>>> > >>>> All the best, > >>>> > >>>> Rod > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: > >>>> xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > >>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd. > >>>> ed > >>>> u > >>>> ] > >>>> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > >>>> Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 > >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > >>>> > >>>> Try this, in Word this time. > >>>> Andy > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>> *Andy Blunden* > >>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > >>>> On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: > >>>> > >>>> ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the > >>>> chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST > >>>> be somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. > >>>> > >>>> After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas > >>>> seems appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of > >>>> extended essay's on his view of Romantic Science. > >>>> > >>>> It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, > >>>> were not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of > >>>> their enterprise encompassed those fields and more. > >>>> > >>>> Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual case > >>>> in no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their > work. > >>>> Nor does Luria argue so. > >>>> > >>>> mike > >>>> ? > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg > >>>> dkellogg60@gmail.com>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I think the problem with this view of romantic science > >>>> is that it > >>>> completely precludes building a psychology on a > >>>> sociology. In that sense > >>>> (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist > >>>> at all. Vygotsky > >>>> certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the > >>>> individual case"; such > >>>> an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of > >>>> theory. I'm not sure > >>>> Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a > >>>> Shattered Mind" and > >>>> "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. > >>>> Remember the main > >>>> criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human > >>>> Conflicts" was always that > >>>> it was too quantitative. > >>>> > >>>> There are, of course, some areas of psychology that > >>>> are well studied as > >>>> case histories. Recently, I've been looking into > >>>> suicidology, and in > >>>> particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered > >>>> the linguistic > >>>> analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have > >>>> been influenced, as > >>>> early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work > >>>> on schizophrinia). > >>>> Now you would think that if ever there was a field > >>>> that would benefit from > >>>> total immersion in the individual case, this is one. > >>>> But Shneidman says > >>>> that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal > >>>> phrases, and as a > >>>> consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively > >>>> (one of his first > >>>> studies was simply to sort a pile of real and > >>>> imitation suicide notes and > >>>> carefully note the criteria he had when he made > >>>> correct judgements). And of > >>>> course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide > >>>> is that the individual > >>>> case can be utterly disregarded, since the great > >>>> variations are > >>>> sociological and the psychological variables all seem > >>>> trivial, transient, > >>>> or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a > >>>> large scale (as we must > >>>> these days). Shneidman says he has never read a > >>>> suicide note he would want > >>>> to have written. > >>>> > >>>> David Kellogg > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden > >>>> >>>> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' > >>>> style of Romantic > >>>> > Science was his complete immersion in the individual > >>>> case before him, and > >>>> > development of a science of complete persons. The > >>>> paradigm of this type of > >>>> > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative > >>>> Science" I suppose. The > >>>> > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each > >>>> case, e.g. facial > >>>> > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a > >>>> "covering law" for just this > >>>> > aspect. > >>>> > Andy > >>>> > > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>> > *Andy Blunden* > >>>> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > >>>> < > >>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/> > >>>> > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > >>>> > > >>>> >> Mike, > >>>> >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that > >>>> naysayers were cited in > >>>> >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering > >>>> if some of that push back > >>>> >> was related to his practice of romantic science, > >>>> which, if I understand > >>>> >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in > >>>> the phenomena of > >>>> >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, > >>>> for example, immersed > >>>> >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His > >>>> writing prefigures the cell > >>>> >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of > >>>> microscopes could not confirm > >>>> >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner > >>>> and Sacks makes me > >>>> >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at > >>>> issue. Different styles > >>>> >> of research bring different construals. This may be > >>>> the bane of > >>>> >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really > >>>> make Sacks less of a > >>>> >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? > >>>> >> Henry > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole > >>>> > >>>> > > >>>> wrote: > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our > >>>> connections with Luria and > >>>> >>> the fact that we > >>>> >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a > >>>> romantic science. He was a > >>>> >>> shy > >>>> >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, > >>>> and the difference > >>>> >>> between > >>>> >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the > >>>> interview with them that > >>>> >>> someone > >>>> >>> pirated on > >>>> >>> to youtube. > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, > >>>> engaging intellectually all > >>>> >>> the while. > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> mike > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin > >>>> >>>> martinl@azscience.org>> > >>>> >>> wrote: > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the > >>>> privilege of spending an > >>>> >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting > >>>> Jerry Bruner and Carol > >>>> >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in for Sylvia who > >>>> couldn't make the dinner - it > >>>> >>>> was > >>>> >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you > >>>> ever hear from Bruner? I > >>>> >>>> wonder if he's still active. > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> Laura > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole > >>>> > >>>> > > >>>> wrote: > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> Dear Colleagues --- > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news > >>>> that Oliver Sacks has > >>>> >>>> succumbed to cancer. > >>>> >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. > >>>> >>>> mike > >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM > >>>> >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; > >>>> Neurologist and Author > >>>> >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks > >>>> >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com > >>>> lchcmike@gmail.com> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com > >>>> >: > >>>> Oliver Sacks Dies at > >>>> 82; Neurologist > >>>> >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks > >>>> >>>> < > >>>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbej > >>>> xL > >>>> 4 > >>>> a < > >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbej > >>>> xL > >>>> 4 > >>>> a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1 > >>>> 44 > >>>> 0 > >>>> 972441657668®i_id=0> > >>>> > >>>> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >>>> >>>> By > >>>> >>>> GREGORY COWLES > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest > >>>> pathways in > >>>> >>>> best-selling > >>>> >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife > >>>> for a Hat,? achieving > >>>> >>>> a > >>>> >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. > >>>> >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: > >>>> http://nyti.ms/1LL040D > >>>> >>>> < > >>>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbej > >>>> xL > >>>> 4 > >>>> a < > >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbej > >>>> xL > >>>> 4 > >>>> a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1 > >>>> 44 > >>>> 0 > >>>> 972441657668®i_id=0> > >>>> > >>>> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >>>> >>>> To > >>>> >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times > >>>> articles, subscribe today. > >>>> >>>> See > >>>> >>>> Subscription Options. > >>>> >>>> < > >>>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7 > >>>> rw > >>>> C > >>>> IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK86 > >>>> 9m > >>>> P > >>>> AvEGfk= > >>>> < > >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7 > >>>> rw > >>>> C > >>>> IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK86 > >>>> 9m > >>>> P > >>>> AvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&tas > >>>> k_ > >>>> i > >>>> d=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >>>> > >>>> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >>>> >>>> To > >>>> >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add > >>>> nytdirect@nytimes.com >>>> nytdirect@nytimes.com> > >>>> to your > >>>> >>>> address book. Advertisement > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> < > >>>> >>>> > >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto < > >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=s > >>>> ec > >>>> u > >>>> re.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264 > >>>> &s > >>>> n > >>>> 1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad= > >>>> Mi > >>>> s > >>>> tressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmi > >>>> st > >>>> r > >>>> essamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview> > >>>> &opzn&page= > >>>> > >>>> > secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview > >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> Copyright 2015 > >>>> >>>> < > >>>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhW > >>>> Vu P IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ== > >>>> < > >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhW > >>>> Vu > >>>> P > >>>> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=b > >>>> d3 > >>>> 1 > >>>> 502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=144097244165766 > >>>> 8& > >>>> r > >>>> egi_id=0> > >>>> > >>>> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 > >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> | The New York Times Company > >>>> >>>> < > >>>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQ > >>>> Ec > >>>> S > >>>> h < > >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQ > >>>> Ec > >>>> S > >>>> h&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1 > >>>> 44 > >>>> 0 > >>>> 972441657668®i_id=0> > >>>> > >>>> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 > >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> -- > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a > >>>> natural science with an > >>>> >>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>> -- > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a > >>>> natural science with an > >>>> >>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >>>> >>> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with > >>>> an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ________________________________ > >>>> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] < > >>>> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> < > >>>> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > >>>> > >>>> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended > >>>> solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you > >>>> are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other > >>>> use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you > >>>> should not rely on it. > >>>> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know > >>>> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are > >>>> not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth > >>>> University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your > >>>> responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth > >>>> University does not accept responsibility for any changes made > >>>> after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments > >>>> constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an > official order form. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > -- > Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. > Director, > Office of Institutional Research > < > http://www.fordham.edu/academics/office_of_the_provos/office_of_institutio/index.asp > > > Fordham University > Thebaud Hall-202 > Bronx, NY 10458 > > Phone: (718) 817-2243 > Fax: (718) 817-3817 > email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu > > > -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Gabosh_Feigenbaum_ISCAR 2011 (Rome)_Textual Presentation.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 53760 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150904/5e01013e/attachment-0001.xls -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Gabosh_Feigenbaum_ISCAR 2011 (Rome)_Slides.ppt Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint Size: 1641472 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150904/5e01013e/attachment-0001.ppt From smago@uga.edu Fri Sep 4 12:57:31 2015 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 19:57:31 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: References: <55E37E99.000004FA@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <12553216-10FA-4C70-8D8F-097266281640@gmail.com> <55E4EF7C.7090500@mira.net> <55E526CC.6080400@mira.net> <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC311027525EA@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> <55E5C259.9060101@mira.net> <000f01d0e4de$fb40b960$f1c22c20$@att.net> <001701d0e4e7$ad752be0$085f83a0$@att.net> <002501d0e58e$ee919760$cbb4c620$@att.net> <55E710F5.2020903@mira.net> <003c01d0e68d$13649340$3a2db9c0$@att.net> <55E8EF22.6060207@mira.net> <006001d0e731$648c8990$2da59cb0$@att.net> Message-ID: I'm not at all attaching this paper to trump the one that Peter F has sent, but I have also used the term practical concept, although it's far from true. p -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 3:41 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science Peg, At your request, I've attached the text and slide show that Steve and I presented at ISCAR. The paper we presented was entitled "A Proposed Methodological Tool For Exploring and Expanding Vygotsky?s Theory of Concept Formation". It should be noted that Steve was the driving force behind this work. He authored the hypothesis about the existence of a "practical concept" that is a systematic, true concept. In retrospect, my contribution regarding the "topicalizing" and "commenting" functions of verbal thinking seems wildly out of place. Moreover, how any of these ideas might relate to Romantic Science is difficult to imagine! Peter On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Peg Griffin wrote: > Thanks for bringing in the work you and Steve Gabosh did, Peter, and > for the attachment. It make me wish I had been at the conference. Is > there a publication or other trace of the work that I could look for? > PG > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of > xmca-l-bounces+Peter > Feigenbaum [Staff] > Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 11:15 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > Colleagues, > > I'm intrigued by Peg Griffin's introduction of the 2 x 2 matrix into > this discussion for the purpose of thinking about the relationships > between the concrete-abstract continuum and the particular-general > continuum. What piqued my interest was the application of this > particular matrix to the discussion of Sachs, Luria, and Romantic Science. > > Back in 2011, Steve Gabosh and I made a presentation at ISCAR using > this very same matrix. Steve came up with the idea of cross-tabbing > the two continuua after noting (during his careful reading of > Vygotsky's *Collected > Works* (in English) that Vygotsky sometimes referred to the > concrete-abstract and the particular-general aspects of thinking as if > they were interchangeable, but at other times referred to them as if > they were denoting different qualities. To tease the qualities apart, > Steve suggested we arrange them as a 2 x 2 matrix. Doing so allowed us > an opportunity to explore Vygotsky's claims about concept > development--with a particular focus on the claim that uneducated > adults think only in complexes. Pasted below (and attached, just in > case your email won't display it) is our graphic rendition of how the > syncretic, complexive, preconteptual, and conceptual formations described by Vygotsky might be arrayed on this matrix. > > > [image: Inline image 1] > > It never occurred to either of us that this same matrix might be a > useful tool for thinking about Romantic Science and the integration of > the nomothetic and the idiographic perspectives! > > Very creative, Peg. > > Peter > > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > Yes, that helps, Peg. I think it is what is often called a "heuristic" > > - your equivalent of Engestrom's Expanding Triangle. > > Thanks! > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > On 4/09/2015 7:11 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > > > >> Andy, about what kind of tool: For me, at this time, it is a tool > >> for thinking about romantic science, Sacks, and Luria. > >> > >> It's a tad like the problem of figure/ground illusion/perception -- > >> except it's four panes instead of two. > >> > >> I want a tool to see if I can avoid confusing or conflating > >> specific and concrete as well as confusing or conflating general and abstract. > >> AND I want the tool to let me see together the dimension of > >> concrete/abstract and the dimension of specific/general. > >> > >> In the past I have used it to help me think about genetic primary > >> examples. > >> I am also now about to try seeing what I need (maybe different > >> dimensions altogether, maybe more than four panes) to think about > >> genetic chimerism and social situations with multiple activities > >> which are coexisting... > >> > >> In a sense, yes, my use of the tool is always diagnostic -- showing > >> me what I stumble on in thinking -- and might bring a little > >> progress (treatment). > >> > >> Just like in the figure/ground illusions you can twiddle around a > >> bit and make things obvious that you couldn't "see". > >> I'm attaching here some different ways you can twiddle around with > >> the Johari window. > >> Does that help? > >> PG > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > >> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of > >> xmca-l-bounces+Andy > >> Blunden > >> Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 11:09 AM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > >> > >> So this is a diagnostic tool, Peg? > >> Could you spell this out a little more for someone who still > >> doesn't grasp what you are talking about? :) andy intrigued. > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> *Andy Blunden* > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > >> On 3/09/2015 12:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > >> > >>> What I did not make clear is that the JoHari window is not really > >>> the same as a matrix. It is a different kind of tool than I think > >>> David and Peter are thinking about. > >>> Here's the trick: You change the pane sizes to emphasize the one > >>> of the four panes you are currently acting on -- but all four > >>> panes are always there. > >>> So you can make the "concrete specific" pane HUGE by moving the > >>> top bottom inner divider far to the right and moving the left right inner > >>> divider far to the bottom. Or you can move only one of the dividers. > >>> And you can move the dividers without such extremes. > >>> > >>> Even if a diagnosis/treatment only does the first move I > >>> described, there's little abstract involved. I don't mind that so > >>> much if the actors are involved in an emergency triage activity, > >>> but without the abstract you are going on observables very > >>> influenced by perceptual and cultural access of the actors and you > >>> might not even have the most useful template from the general to > >>> guide/evaluate your trials and errors. So you'd better shift the > >>> panes pretty soon before things > get way off base. > >>> > >>> You can also fool around with the arrangement of the terms that > >>> name the > >>> panes: Do you get more out of concrete vs. specific or more out > >>> of specific vs. concrete (in David's terms the anchors for the cline). > >>> Same for abstract vs. concrete or concrete vs. abstract. > >>> PG > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu > >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On > >>> Behalf Of Peg Griffin > >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:55 PM > >>> To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > >>> > >>> As far as I understand those terms (nomothetic and idiographic), > >>> the combined motor method does unite them and so arrives at dual > >>> stimulation, given the non-accidental mosaic. > >>> But I don't know that my understanding goes far enough or too far! > >>> Peg > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu > >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On > >>> Behalf Of mike cole > >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:08 PM > >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > >>> > >>> Is that simultaneously uniting the nomothetic and idiographic, Peg? > >>> That is the way Luria talked about it. > >>> mike > >>> > >>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Peg Griffin > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> Just in a short-hand: > >>>> > >>>> Concrete Specific: Zasetsky (The man with the shattered world) > >>>> > >>>> Concrete General: People with traumatic brain injury during WWII > >>>> > >>>> Abstract General: Brain is a mosaic of specific domains with > >>>> actions that interact in dual stimulations (not pure will) > >>>> > >>>> Abstract Specific: A man acts to recall using images; it fails > >>>> on a certain target. The man starts appears to abandon the > >>>> recall by acting an intimately related system ? e.g., reciting the alphabet. > >>>> But the recital is ?interrupted? when it bumps into the original > >>>> recall target and the recall is successful. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> For diagnosis and/or treatment, we must rise to the concrete specific. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Sorry I don?t have time to develop this further but I am sure > >>>> many on this list do, and I know that Luria and Sacks did so in > >>>> wondrous and glorious instances. > >>>> > >>>> Peg > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net] > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:21 AM > >>>> To: Peg Griffin; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > >>>> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Could you give an example, Peg? > >>>> andy > >>>> > >>>> _____ > >>>> > >>>> *Andy Blunden* > >>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > >>>> > >>>> On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > >>>> > >>>> What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and > >>>> Sachs ? with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I > >>>> made (based on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft > >>>> and Harrington Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to > >>>> fill in each of the four cells in > >>>> the square about an issue of interest. It helps me think about > >>>> genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. > >>>> Concrete Abstract > >>>> Specific > >>>> General > >>>> > >>>> A romantic square, > >>>> Peg > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > >>>> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of > >>>> xmca-l-bounces+Rod > >>>> Parker-Rees > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM > >>>> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for posting this, Andy. > >>>> > >>>> I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his > >>>> reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his > >>>> observation that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an > >>>> event isolated from other things or events. Its real object is to > >>>> see and understand the way a thing or event relates to other > >>>> things or > events'. > >>>> > >>>> We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or > >>>> less) on ways of organising experience into shareable categories > >>>> but our communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of > >>>> using these categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic > >>>> branches of science but he also acknowledges the differences > >>>> between 'poetic' use of language and more routine, formulaic > >>>> forms of communication. The romantic focus on an 'individual' can > >>>> only ever be conducted in the medium of a very un-individual > >>>> language and no person's life could possibly be understood > >>>> without reference to relationships with other persons which then > >>>> spread roots and branches out to a forest of connections, causes and consequences. > >>>> > >>>> David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of > >>>> theory if one were to immerse oneself in the study of an > >>>> individual case and Luria cites Marx's description of science as > >>>> 'ascending to the concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People > >>>> come and go, but the creative sources of great historical events > >>>> and the important ideas and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what > >>>> matters is the contribution individuals make to something bigger > >>>> and more enduring than themselves but Luria also writes that > >>>> 'Romantics in science want neither to split living reality into > >>>> its elementary components nor to represent the wealth of life's > >>>> concrete events in abstract models that lose the properties of the phenomena themselves'. > >>>> > >>>> I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is > >>>> particularly interesting because it may reveal something about > >>>> how all minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' > >>>> lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory > >>>> associations which words bring with them in a way which, for most > >>>> of us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a > >>>> particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that every > >>>> person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, > >>>> behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface of > >>>> a pool of connections and associations which can never be shared > >>>> with or known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, > >>>> we can only go so far in understanding another person's > >>>> understanding and much less far in communicating that to other > >>>> people (knowing someone is a very different thing from being able > >>>> to share that knowledge in a rich and meaningful way). And of > >>>> course, on the other side of the spectrum, classical scientists > >>>> who pretend that their knowledge is entirely pure and untainted > >>>> by the personal associations that swirl beneath the limens of > >>>> their knowing are just > inventing stories! > >>>> > >>>> I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what > >>>> lies beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young > >>>> children are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is > >>>> so powerfully dominated by abstractions. > >>>> > >>>> All the best, > >>>> > >>>> Rod > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: > >>>> xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > >>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd. > >>>> ed > >>>> u > >>>> ] > >>>> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > >>>> Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 > >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > >>>> > >>>> Try this, in Word this time. > >>>> Andy > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>> *Andy Blunden* > >>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the > >>>> chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST > >>>> be somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. > >>>> > >>>> After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas > >>>> seems appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of > >>>> extended essay's on his view of Romantic Science. > >>>> > >>>> It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, > >>>> were not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature > >>>> of their enterprise encompassed those fields and more. > >>>> > >>>> Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual > >>>> case in no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in > >>>> their > work. > >>>> Nor does Luria argue so. > >>>> > >>>> mike > >>>> ? > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg > >>>> dkellogg60@gmail.com>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I think the problem with this view of romantic science > >>>> is that it > >>>> completely precludes building a psychology on a > >>>> sociology. In that sense > >>>> (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist > >>>> at all. Vygotsky > >>>> certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the > >>>> individual case"; such > >>>> an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of > >>>> theory. I'm not sure > >>>> Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a > >>>> Shattered Mind" and > >>>> "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. > >>>> Remember the main > >>>> criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human > >>>> Conflicts" was always that > >>>> it was too quantitative. > >>>> > >>>> There are, of course, some areas of psychology that > >>>> are well studied as > >>>> case histories. Recently, I've been looking into > >>>> suicidology, and in > >>>> particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered > >>>> the linguistic > >>>> analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have > >>>> been influenced, as > >>>> early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work > >>>> on schizophrinia). > >>>> Now you would think that if ever there was a field > >>>> that would benefit from > >>>> total immersion in the individual case, this is one. > >>>> But Shneidman says > >>>> that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal > >>>> phrases, and as a > >>>> consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively > >>>> (one of his first > >>>> studies was simply to sort a pile of real and > >>>> imitation suicide notes and > >>>> carefully note the criteria he had when he made > >>>> correct judgements). And of > >>>> course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide > >>>> is that the individual > >>>> case can be utterly disregarded, since the great > >>>> variations are > >>>> sociological and the psychological variables all seem > >>>> trivial, transient, > >>>> or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a > >>>> large scale (as we must > >>>> these days). Shneidman says he has never read a > >>>> suicide note he would want > >>>> to have written. > >>>> > >>>> David Kellogg > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden > >>>> >>>> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' > >>>> style of Romantic > >>>> > Science was his complete immersion in the individual > >>>> case before him, and > >>>> > development of a science of complete persons. The > >>>> paradigm of this type of > >>>> > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative > >>>> Science" I suppose. The > >>>> > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each > >>>> case, e.g. facial > >>>> > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a > >>>> "covering law" for just this > >>>> > aspect. > >>>> > Andy > >>>> > > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>> > *Andy Blunden* > >>>> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > >>>> < > >>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/> > >>>> > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > >>>> > > >>>> >> Mike, > >>>> >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that > >>>> naysayers were cited in > >>>> >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering > >>>> if some of that push back > >>>> >> was related to his practice of romantic science, > >>>> which, if I understand > >>>> >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in > >>>> the phenomena of > >>>> >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, > >>>> for example, immersed > >>>> >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His > >>>> writing prefigures the cell > >>>> >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of > >>>> microscopes could not confirm > >>>> >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner > >>>> and Sacks makes me > >>>> >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at > >>>> issue. Different styles > >>>> >> of research bring different construals. This may be > >>>> the bane of > >>>> >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really > >>>> make Sacks less of a > >>>> >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? > >>>> >> Henry > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole > >>>> > >>>> > > >>>> wrote: > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our > >>>> connections with Luria and > >>>> >>> the fact that we > >>>> >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a > >>>> romantic science. He was a > >>>> >>> shy > >>>> >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, > >>>> and the difference > >>>> >>> between > >>>> >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the > >>>> interview with them that > >>>> >>> someone > >>>> >>> pirated on > >>>> >>> to youtube. > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, > >>>> engaging intellectually all > >>>> >>> the while. > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> mike > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin > >>>> >>>> martinl@azscience.org>> > >>>> >>> wrote: > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the > >>>> privilege of spending an > >>>> >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting > >>>> Jerry Bruner and Carol > >>>> >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in for Sylvia who > >>>> couldn't make the dinner - it > >>>> >>>> was > >>>> >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you > >>>> ever hear from Bruner? I > >>>> >>>> wonder if he's still active. > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> Laura > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole > >>>> > >>>> > > >>>> wrote: > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> Dear Colleagues --- > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news > >>>> that Oliver Sacks has > >>>> >>>> succumbed to cancer. > >>>> >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. > >>>> >>>> mike > >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM > >>>> >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; > >>>> Neurologist and Author > >>>> >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks > >>>> >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com > >>>> lchcmike@gmail.com> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com > >>>> > >>>> >: > >>>> Oliver Sacks Dies at > >>>> 82; Neurologist > >>>> >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks > >>>> >>>> < > >>>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKb > >>>> ej > >>>> xL > >>>> 4 > >>>> a < > >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKb > >>>> ej > >>>> xL > >>>> 4 > >>>> a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id > >>>> =1 > >>>> 44 > >>>> 0 > >>>> 972441657668®i_id=0> > >>>> > >>>> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=14409 > 72441657668®i_id=0> > >>>> >>>> By > >>>> >>>> GREGORY COWLES > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest > >>>> pathways in > >>>> >>>> best-selling > >>>> >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife > >>>> for a Hat,? achieving > >>>> >>>> a > >>>> >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. > >>>> >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: > >>>> http://nyti.ms/1LL040D > >>>> >>>> < > >>>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKb > >>>> ej > >>>> xL > >>>> 4 > >>>> a < > >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKb > >>>> ej > >>>> xL > >>>> 4 > >>>> a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id > >>>> =1 > >>>> 44 > >>>> 0 > >>>> 972441657668®i_id=0> > >>>> > >>>> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=14409 > 72441657668®i_id=0> > >>>> >>>> To > >>>> >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times > >>>> articles, subscribe today. > >>>> >>>> See > >>>> >>>> Subscription Options. > >>>> >>>> < > >>>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzk > >>>> g7 > >>>> rw > >>>> C > >>>> IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK > >>>> 86 > >>>> 9m > >>>> P > >>>> AvEGfk= > >>>> < > >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzk > >>>> g7 > >>>> rw > >>>> C > >>>> IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK > >>>> 86 > >>>> 9m > >>>> P > >>>> AvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&t > >>>> as > >>>> k_ > >>>> i > >>>> d=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >>>> > >>>> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=14409 > 72441657668®i_id=0> > >>>> >>>> To > >>>> >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add > >>>> nytdirect@nytimes.com >>>> nytdirect@nytimes.com> > >>>> to your > >>>> >>>> address book. Advertisement > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> < > >>>> >>>> > >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto < > >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page > >>>> =s > >>>> ec > >>>> u > >>>> re.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a2 > >>>> 64 > >>>> &s > >>>> n > >>>> 1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&a > >>>> d= > >>>> Mi > >>>> s > >>>> tressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2F > >>>> mi > >>>> st > >>>> r > >>>> essamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview> > >>>> &opzn&page= > >>>> > >>>> > secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a26 > 4&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad > =MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fm > istressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview > >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> Copyright 2015 > >>>> >>>> < > >>>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhI > >>>> hW Vu P IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ== > >>>> < > >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhI > >>>> hW > >>>> Vu > >>>> P > >>>> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id > >>>> =b > >>>> d3 > >>>> 1 > >>>> 502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657 > >>>> 66 > >>>> 8& > >>>> r > >>>> egi_id=0> > >>>> > >>>> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=14409 > 72441657668®i_id=0 > >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> | The New York Times Company > >>>> >>>> < > >>>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzL > >>>> lQ > >>>> Ec > >>>> S > >>>> h < > >>>> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzL > >>>> lQ > >>>> Ec > >>>> S > >>>> h&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id > >>>> =1 > >>>> 44 > >>>> 0 > >>>> 972441657668®i_id=0> > >>>> > >>>> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=14409 > 72441657668®i_id=0 > >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> -- > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a > >>>> natural science with an > >>>> >>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>> -- > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a > >>>> natural science with an > >>>> >>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >>>> >>> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with > >>>> an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ________________________________ > >>>> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] < > >>>> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> < > >>>> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > >>>> > >>>> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended > >>>> solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If > >>>> you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or > >>>> other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and > >>>> you should not rely on it. > >>>> If you have received this email in error please let the sender > >>>> know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet > >>>> emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, > >>>> Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it > >>>> is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. > >>>> Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any > >>>> changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its > >>>> attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless > >>>> accompanied by an > official order form. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > -- > Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. > Director, > Office of Institutional Research > < > http://www.fordham.edu/academics/office_of_the_provos/office_of_instit > utio/index.asp > > > Fordham University > Thebaud Hall-202 > Bronx, NY 10458 > > Phone: (718) 817-2243 > Fax: (718) 817-3817 > email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu > > > -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: LCSI_2013.PDF Type: application/pdf Size: 357841 bytes Desc: LCSI_2013.PDF Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150904/74661f14/attachment.pdf From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Fri Sep 4 13:16:49 2015 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:16:49 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: References: <55E37E99.000004FA@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <12553216-10FA-4C70-8D8F-097266281640@gmail.com> <55E4EF7C.7090500@mira.net> <55E526CC.6080400@mira.net> <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC311027525EA@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> <55E5C259.9060101@mira.net> <000f01d0e4de$fb40b960$f1c22c20$@att.net> <001701d0e4e7$ad752be0$085f83a0$@att.net> <002501d0e58e$ee919760$cbb4c620$@att.net> <55E710F5.2020903@mira.net> <003c01d0e68d$13649340$3a2db9c0$@att.net> <55E8EF22.6060207@mira.net> Message-ID: <33FE4AD6-830D-4B4A-AAC3-CFF71863898F@uniandes.edu.co> Peter, If there is nothing in the upper-right and lower-left quadrants, doesn't this suggest that there is in fact no difference between concrete and particular, or between general and abstract? That's to say, a single dimension would be sufficient to categorize the four concept types. Martin On Sep 4, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] wrote: > From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Fri Sep 4 13:49:05 2015 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:49:05 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <33FE4AD6-830D-4B4A-AAC3-CFF71863898F@uniandes.edu.co> References: <55E37E99.000004FA@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <12553216-10FA-4C70-8D8F-097266281640@gmail.com> <55E4EF7C.7090500@mira.net> <55E526CC.6080400@mira.net> <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC311027525EA@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> <55E5C259.9060101@mira.net> <000f01d0e4de$fb40b960$f1c22c20$@att.net> <001701d0e4e7$ad752be0$085f83a0$@att.net> <002501d0e58e$ee919760$cbb4c620$@att.net> <55E710F5.2020903@mira.net> <003c01d0e68d$13649340$3a2db9c0$@att.net> <55E8EF22.6060207@mira.net> <33FE4AD6-830D-4B4A-AAC3-CFF71863898F@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: Aha, I see that in your presentation there was a second slide, in which the other quadrants are now populated. So now I get to ask a follow-up question! What would be the developmental sequence of these six ovals? Martin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 32944 bytes Desc: PastedGraphic-1.pdf Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150904/b4369e75/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt Url: https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150904/b4369e75/attachment.txt From pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu Fri Sep 4 14:24:54 2015 From: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu (Peter Feigenbaum [Staff]) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 17:24:54 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: References: <55E37E99.000004FA@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <12553216-10FA-4C70-8D8F-097266281640@gmail.com> <55E4EF7C.7090500@mira.net> <55E526CC.6080400@mira.net> <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC311027525EA@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> <003901d0e4c8$dd3bcba0$97b362e0$@att.net> <55E5C259.9060101@mira.net> <000f01d0e4de$fb40b960$f1c22c20$@att.net> <001701d0e4e7$ad752be0$085f83a0$@att.net> <002501d0e58e$ee919760$cbb4c620$@att.net> <55E710F5.2020903@mira.net> <003c01d0e68d$13649340$3a2db9c0$@att.net> <55E8EF22.6060207@mira.net> <33FE4AD6-830D-4B4A-AAC3-CFF71863898F@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: Martin, There is a final slide (which receives no comment in the text because I think we didn't present it) that Steve invented as an attempt to answer that question. He envisions the starting point to be practical concepts, which are located in the concrete-general quadrant. These are followed developmentally by the syncretic, complexive, and preconceptual formations in the concrete-particular quadrant. Abstract complexive thinking, located in the abstract-particular quadrant, follows next. The final stage is development of abstract-general thinking--i.e., scientific concepts. Peter F On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Martin John Packer wrote: > Aha, I see that in your presentation there was a second slide, in which > the other quadrants are now populated. So now I get to ask a follow-up > question! What would be the developmental sequence of these six ovals? > > Martin > > > -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Fri Sep 4 14:08:50 2015 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 21:08:50 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <55e9c7e2.4410460a.b1572.ffff859b@mx.google.com> References: <55e9c7e2.4410460a.b1572.ffff859b@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <1515521538.2418985.1441400930198.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Dear all ,? I think I did not receive Peter's first post (below) to which Larry reacted . I made efforts to figure out the content of the threads but it proved to be futile endeavour . With the matrix and the Johari Window concept I reached nowhere either . And even now I cannot establish a significant relationship between these concepts and the more familiar concepts Peter and Steve had presented at the Conference . What I understood was this : [[For diagnosis and/or treatment, we must rise to the concrete specific.]] And this added to my difficulties . I wrote to a colleague offlist before Peter's posts part of which you can see here :? 1. Something I remember from Ilyenko and Davydov to the effect that when we ascend to the concrete , we have , in fact , passed the "specifity" , "individuality" . The individual or the specific just give us the appearance and the "many repeated similarities-Ilyenko" and here we are just on the surface and with the sensorial (Phenomenology) . It could just be our point of departure . When we reach the "concrete" , we are dealing with "universal" . Like the table as object which phantomizes us to be concrete while in actuality , it's no more than the abstract . We have to seek particularities in this piece (the essentials and the necessaries) which take us to the connections with others of akin genus which possess those same particulars , enabling us to generalize , then proved and reached the "universal" , which is more than general , let alone being "specific" . That's why Davydov recommends us to begin teaching the kids not with one token of a match stick as indicating and intending to teach number "one" and to teach "furniture" rather than the one item "table" as concrete .? 3.I think we should first differentiate between "contemplation" , "conceptualization" and "praxis" . Ilyenko in particular stresses on the term "contemplation" as the first phase of cognition which is defective , parallel with what I dub as superficial or sensorial , phenomenological . "conceptualization" is the second phase , the depths , the theorizing , the ascendance to the concrete as fore-mentioned and as so brilliantly explicated by Vygotsky , syncretic , complex and pseudo-concept and true concept .? Now I should be excused by Peg Griffin as to my ignorance of the "reality" of the concepts and by Peter and Steve because for some unknown reason I have to propose that the vertical axis be reversed . P.S. Many a time I've made efforts , asked others , to differentiate between ONTOLOGY and EPISTEMOLOGY ; yet I've stayed on the same spot . First thesis of Feuerbach tells us if it's the case that we imagine / conceive the objects there to themselves without any wrestling on our part to get involved with them , then science / genuine materialism would not present any meaning to us . All things arise from the wrestling and the involvement . On this point , too , in either case , our work and thinking power are involved except that with ontology , we try to conceive things as existent and trace them as external transformables in themselves while with epistemology we deal with the pertaining ideas as reflexions . Then , in the natural and physical sciences , by concrete we mean "of matter" , corporeal , while in philosophy and gnoseology which is the province of the second of our division , knowledge , concrete , of necessity , would mean conceptual , the highest and most valued categorial philosophical term . In what ways am I completely mistaken ? Best Haydi? From: Lplarry To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Friday, 4 September 2015, 21:02:50 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science Mike and Peg wrote an article (Cultural Amplifiers Reconsidered) where Shweder is referenced to show that when information is presented in a 2x2 table so that the data were simultaneously available THEN correct inferences almost always occurred. So Shweder concludes most adults have the Capacity to think correlationally buy are not "likely" to do so. This shows the application of the grid confuses "likelihood" and "correlation" which contributes to what Shweder terms "magical" thinking which indicates a particular character. Peg and Mike's question is: "Why correlational thinking is not CHARACTERISTIC of everyday life thinking of educated adults who "have" the CAPACITY. -----Original Message----- From: "Peter Feigenbaum [Staff]" Sent: ?2015-?09-?04 8:19 AM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science Colleagues, I'm intrigued by Peg Griffin's introduction of the 2 x 2 matrix into this discussion for the purpose of thinking about the relationships between the concrete-abstract continuum and the particular-general continuum. What piqued my interest was the application of this particular matrix to the discussion of Sachs, Luria, and Romantic Science. Back in 2011, Steve Gabosh and I made a presentation at ISCAR using this very same matrix. Steve came up with the idea of cross-tabbing the two continuua after noting (during his careful reading of Vygotsky's *Collected Works* (in English) that Vygotsky sometimes referred to the concrete-abstract and the particular-general aspects of thinking as if they were interchangeable, but at other times referred to them as if they were denoting different qualities. To tease the qualities apart, Steve suggested we arrange them as a 2 x 2 matrix. Doing so allowed us an opportunity to explore Vygotsky's claims about concept development--with a particular focus on the claim that uneducated adults think only in complexes. Pasted below (and attached, just in case your email won't display it) is our graphic rendition of how the syncretic, complexive, preconteptual, and conceptual formations described by Vygotsky might be arrayed on this matrix. [image: Inline image 1] It never occurred to either of us that this same matrix might be a useful tool for thinking about Romantic Science and the integration of the nomothetic and the idiographic perspectives! Very creative, Peg. Peter On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > Yes, that helps, Peg. I think it is what is often called a "heuristic" - > your equivalent of Engestrom's Expanding Triangle. > Thanks! > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 4/09/2015 7:11 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > >> Andy, about what kind of tool:? For me, at this time, it is a tool for >> thinking about romantic science, Sacks, and Luria. >> >> It's a tad like the problem of figure/ground illusion/perception -- >> except it's four panes instead of two. >> >> I want a tool to see if I can avoid confusing or conflating specific and >> concrete as well as confusing or conflating general and abstract. >> AND I want the tool to let me see together the dimension of >> concrete/abstract and the dimension of specific/general. >> >> In the past I have used it to help me think about genetic primary >> examples. >> I am also now about to try seeing what I need? (maybe different >> dimensions altogether, maybe more than four panes) to think about genetic >> chimerism and social situations with multiple activities which are >> coexisting... >> >> In a sense, yes, my use of the tool is always diagnostic -- showing me >> what I stumble on in thinking -- and might bring a little progress >> (treatment). >> >> Just like in the figure/ground illusions you can twiddle around a bit and >> make things obvious that you couldn't "see". >> I'm attaching here some different ways you can twiddle around with the >> Johari window. >> Does that help? >> PG >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy >> Blunden >> Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 11:09 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >> >> So this is a diagnostic tool, Peg? >> Could you spell this out a little more for someone who still doesn't >> grasp what you are talking about? :) andy intrigued. >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> On 3/09/2015 12:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: >> >>> What I did not make clear is that the JoHari window is not really the >>> same as a matrix.? It is a different kind of tool than I think David and >>> Peter are thinking about. >>> Here's the trick: You change the pane sizes to emphasize the one of the >>> four panes you are currently acting on -- but all four panes are always >>> there. >>> So you can make the "concrete specific" pane HUGE by moving the top >>> bottom inner divider far to the right and moving the left right inner >>> divider far to the bottom.? Or you can move only one of the? dividers. >>> And you can move the dividers without such extremes. >>> >>> Even if a diagnosis/treatment only does the first move I described, >>> there's little abstract involved.? I don't mind that so much if the actors >>> are involved in an emergency triage activity, but without the abstract you >>> are going on observables very influenced by perceptual and cultural access >>> of the actors and you might not even have the most useful template from the >>> general to guide/evaluate your trials and errors.? So you'd better shift >>> the panes pretty soon before things get way off base. >>> >>> You can also fool around with the arrangement of the terms that name the >>> panes:? Do you get more out of concrete vs. specific or more out of >>> specific vs. concrete (in David's terms the anchors for the cline).? Same >>> for abstract vs. concrete or concrete vs. abstract. >>> PG >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf >>> Of Peg Griffin >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:55 PM >>> To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >>> >>> As far as I understand those terms (nomothetic and idiographic), the >>> combined motor method does unite them and so arrives at dual stimulation, >>> given the non-accidental mosaic. >>> But I don't know that my understanding goes far enough or too far! >>> Peg >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf >>> Of mike cole >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:08 PM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >>> >>> Is that simultaneously uniting the nomothetic and idiographic, Peg? That >>> is the way Luria talked about it. >>> mike >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Peg Griffin >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Just in a short-hand: >>>> >>>> Concrete Specific:? Zasetsky (The man with the shattered world) >>>> >>>> Concrete General: People with traumatic brain injury during WWII >>>> >>>> Abstract General: Brain is a mosaic of specific domains with actions >>>> that interact in dual stimulations (not pure will) >>>> >>>> Abstract Specific:? A man acts to recall using images; it fails on a >>>> certain target.? The man starts appears to abandon the recall by >>>> acting an intimately related system ? e.g., reciting the alphabet. >>>> But the recital is ?interrupted? when it bumps into the original >>>> recall target and the recall is successful. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> For diagnosis and/or treatment, we must rise to the concrete specific. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry I don?t have time to develop this further but I am sure many on >>>> this list do, and I know that Luria and Sacks did so in wondrous and >>>> glorious instances. >>>> >>>> Peg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:21 AM >>>> To: Peg Griffin; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' >>>> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Could you give an example, Peg? >>>> andy >>>> >>>>? ? _____ >>>> >>>> *Andy Blunden* >>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>>> >>>> On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: >>>> >>>> What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and Sachs ? >>>> with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made (based >>>> on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and Harrington >>>> Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill in each of the >>>> four cells in >>>> the square about an issue of interest.? It helps me think about >>>> genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. >>>>? ? Concrete? ? ? Abstract >>>> Specific >>>> General >>>> >>>> A romantic square, >>>> Peg >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>>> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rod >>>> Parker-Rees >>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM >>>> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >>>> >>>> Thanks for posting this, Andy. >>>> >>>> I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his >>>> reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his observation >>>> that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event isolated >>>> from other things or events. Its real object is to see and understand >>>> the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'. >>>> >>>> We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or >>>> less) on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but >>>> our communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using >>>> these categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of >>>> science but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use >>>> of language and more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The >>>> romantic focus on an 'individual' can only ever be conducted in the >>>> medium of a very un-individual language and no person's life could >>>> possibly be understood without reference to relationships with other >>>> persons which then spread roots and branches out to a forest of >>>> connections, causes and consequences. >>>> >>>> David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of theory >>>> if one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case and >>>> Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the >>>> concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but the >>>> creative sources of great historical events and the important ideas >>>> and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the contribution >>>> individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than >>>> themselves but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want >>>> neither to split living reality into its elementary components nor to >>>> represent the wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that >>>> lose the properties of the phenomena themselves'. >>>> >>>> I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is >>>> particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how >>>> all minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' >>>> lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory >>>> associations which words bring with them in a way which, for most of >>>> us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a >>>> particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that every >>>> person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, >>>> behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface of a >>>> pool of connections and associations which can never be shared with >>>> or known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can >>>> only go so far in understanding another person's understanding and >>>> much less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone >>>> is a very different thing from being able to share that knowledge in >>>> a rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of the >>>> spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge is >>>> entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that swirl >>>> beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! >>>> >>>> I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what >>>> lies beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young >>>> children are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so >>>> powerfully dominated by abstractions. >>>> >>>> All the best, >>>> >>>> Rod >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.ed >>>> u >>>> ] >>>> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >>>> Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >>>> >>>> Try this, in Word this time. >>>> Andy >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> *Andy Blunden* >>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>>> On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: >>>> >>>> ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the >>>> chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST be >>>> somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. >>>> >>>> After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas >>>> seems appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended >>>> essay's on his view of Romantic Science. >>>> >>>> It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, were >>>> not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of their >>>> enterprise encompassed those fields and more. >>>> >>>> Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual case >>>> in no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their work. >>>> Nor does Luria argue so. >>>> >>>> mike >>>> ? >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>? ? ? I think the problem with this view of romantic science >>>>? ? ? is that it >>>>? ? ? completely precludes building a psychology on a >>>>? ? ? sociology. In that sense >>>>? ? ? (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist >>>>? ? ? at all. Vygotsky >>>>? ? ? certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the >>>>? ? ? individual case"; such >>>>? ? ? an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of >>>>? ? ? theory. I'm not sure >>>>? ? ? Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a >>>>? ? ? Shattered Mind" and >>>>? ? ? "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. >>>>? ? ? Remember the main >>>>? ? ? criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human >>>>? ? ? Conflicts" was always that >>>>? ? ? it was too quantitative. >>>> >>>>? ? ? There are, of course, some areas of psychology that >>>>? ? ? are well studied as >>>>? ? ? case histories. Recently, I've been looking into >>>>? ? ? suicidology, and in >>>>? ? ? particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered >>>>? ? ? the linguistic >>>>? ? ? analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have >>>>? ? ? been influenced, as >>>>? ? ? early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work >>>>? ? ? on schizophrinia). >>>>? ? ? Now you would think that if ever there was a field >>>>? ? ? that would benefit from >>>>? ? ? total immersion in the individual case, this is one. >>>>? ? ? But Shneidman says >>>>? ? ? that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal >>>>? ? ? phrases, and as a >>>>? ? ? consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively >>>>? ? ? (one of his first >>>>? ? ? studies was simply to sort a pile of real and >>>>? ? ? imitation suicide notes and >>>>? ? ? carefully note the criteria he had when he made >>>>? ? ? correct judgements). And of >>>>? ? ? course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide >>>>? ? ? is that the individual >>>>? ? ? case can be utterly disregarded, since the great >>>>? ? ? variations are >>>>? ? ? sociological and the psychological variables all seem >>>>? ? ? trivial, transient, >>>>? ? ? or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a >>>>? ? ? large scale (as we must >>>>? ? ? these days). Shneidman says he has never read a >>>>? ? ? suicide note he would want >>>>? ? ? to have written. >>>> >>>>? ? ? David Kellogg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>? ? ? On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden >>>>? ? ? >>> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: >>>> >>>>? ? ? > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' >>>>? ? ? style of Romantic >>>>? ? ? > Science was his complete immersion in the individual >>>>? ? ? case before him, and >>>>? ? ? > development of a science of complete persons. The >>>>? ? ? paradigm of this type of >>>>? ? ? > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative >>>>? ? ? Science" I suppose. The >>>>? ? ? > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each >>>>? ? ? case, e.g. facial >>>>? ? ? > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a >>>>? ? ? "covering law" for just this >>>>? ? ? > aspect. >>>>? ? ? > Andy >>>>? ? ? > >>>>? ? ? ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>? ? ? > *Andy Blunden* >>>>? ? ? > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>>>? ? ? ? < >>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/> >>>>? ? ? > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >>>>? ? ? > >>>>? ? ? >> Mike, >>>>? ? ? >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that >>>>? ? ? naysayers were cited in >>>>? ? ? >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering >>>>? ? ? if some of that push back >>>>? ? ? >> was related to his practice of romantic science, >>>>? ? ? which, if I understand >>>>? ? ? >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in >>>>? ? ? the phenomena of >>>>? ? ? >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, >>>>? ? ? for example, immersed >>>>? ? ? >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His >>>>? ? ? writing prefigures the cell >>>>? ? ? >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of >>>>? ? ? microscopes could not confirm >>>>? ? ? >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner >>>>? ? ? and Sacks makes me >>>>? ? ? >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at >>>>? ? ? issue. Different styles >>>>? ? ? >> of research bring different construals. This may be >>>>? ? ? the bane of >>>>? ? ? >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really >>>>? ? ? make Sacks less of a >>>>? ? ? >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? >>>>? ? ? >> Henry >>>>? ? ? >> >>>>? ? ? >> >>>>? ? ? >> >>>>? ? ? >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole >>>>? ? ? >>>> > >>>> wrote: >>>>? ? ? >>> >>>>? ? ? >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our >>>>? ? ? connections with Luria and >>>>? ? ? >>> the fact that we >>>>? ? ? >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a >>>>? ? ? romantic science. He was a >>>>? ? ? >>> shy >>>>? ? ? >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, >>>>? ? ? and the difference >>>>? ? ? >>> between >>>>? ? ? >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the >>>>? ? ? interview with them that >>>>? ? ? >>> someone >>>>? ? ? >>> pirated on >>>>? ? ? >>> to youtube. >>>>? ? ? >>> >>>>? ? ? >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, >>>>? ? ? engaging intellectually all >>>>? ? ? >>> the while. >>>>? ? ? >>> >>>>? ? ? >>> mike >>>>? ? ? >>> >>>>? ? ? >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin >>>>? ? ? >>> martinl@azscience.org>> >>>>? ? ? >>> wrote: >>>>? ? ? >>> >>>>? ? ? >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the >>>>? ? ? privilege of spending an >>>>? ? ? >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting >>>>? ? ? Jerry Bruner and Carol >>>>? ? ? >>>> Feldman in NY.? I stood in fo [The entire original message is not included.] From ablunden@mira.net Fri Sep 4 17:28:38 2015 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2015 10:28:38 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <1515521538.2418985.1441400930198.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <55e9c7e2.4410460a.b1572.ffff859b@mx.google.com> <1515521538.2418985.1441400930198.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <55EA3736.4080508@mira.net> Haydi, on the question of ontology and epistemology ... Ontology is the study of being. That does not mean that it is concerned only with independently existing entities. It is the study of what forms of being there are, such as "thoughts". In recent decades this has come to mean a person or a culture's belief in the array of different entities that may be talked of, e.g. gods, classes or individuals, so it is an aspect of cultural difference. Epistemology is the study of knowing, in particular the limits and validity of knowledge. It is not necessarily a study of reflection. In recent decades it has comes to mean a person or a culture's beliefs about the legitimate sources of knowledge, e.g. priests, books or experience, etc. It was Hegel who first proposed that these sciences were bankrupt and should be transcended, because every social formation had its own integral "epistemology" and "ontology" and there was no final answer to the question these sciences proposed, so Hegel's view leads us to the modern way of talking about epistemologies and ontologies in the plural and aspects of a way of thinking and acting in the world. Hegel's Ontology is the first Book of the Logic, and I can see a sense in which you could say that the Second Book is about epistemology, but I don't think this is accurate. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 5/09/2015 7:08 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > P.S. Many a time I've made efforts , asked others , to differentiate between ONTOLOGY and EPISTEMOLOGY ; yet I've stayed on the same spot . First thesis of Feuerbach tells us if it's the case that we imagine / conceive the objects there to themselves without any wrestling on our part to get involved with them , then science / genuine materialism would not present any meaning to us . All things arise from the wrestling and the involvement . On this point , too , in either case , our work and thinking power are involved except that with ontology , we try to conceive things as existent and trace them as external transformables in themselves while with epistemology we deal with the pertaining ideas as reflexions . Then , in the natural and physical sciences , by concrete we mean "of matter" , corporeal , while in philosophy and gnoseology which is the province of the second of our division , knowledge , concrete , of necessity , would mean conceptual , the highest and most valued categorial philosophical term . > In what ways am I completely mistaken ? > Best > Haydi > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Fri Sep 4 22:36:15 2015 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 05:36:15 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?q?Oliver_Sacks/Romantic_Science?= In-Reply-To: <55EA3736.4080508@mira.net> References: <55e9c7e2.4410460a.b1572.ffff859b@mx.google.com> <1515521538.2418985.1441400930198.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>, <55EA3736.4080508@mira.net> Message-ID: <55ea891c.4515460a.25115.ffffd573@mx.google.com> Andy, Haydi, I also am puzzling on this topic and reflecting on having the 2x2 grid in hand to help refer to notions of the general, abstract, ontology and epistemology in relation to the idio, singular, specific, unique. Andy, you suggest Hegel came to realize that both ontology and epistemology are actually PLURAL ontologies and epistemologies that emerge within social formations. however, the assumption that with the realization of their plural *character* these concepts then become bankrupt and must be *transcended* leaves me puzzled? why with the realization of both plural ontologies and plural epistemologies actually residing in ?beliefs? do we feel compelled to transcend or go beyond the plural character of ontologies and epistemologies. in other words, using the 4 quadrants in a 2x2 grid as a guide is it not possible to acknowledge the ?adequacy? of each quadrant as expressing a particular character of our pluralistic ontologies and epistemologies and each having value without the necessity of reducing one quadrant to be derivative of the other quadrant. Mike and Peg explored the metaphor of ?amplification? and is it possible that to amplify any particular quadrant gives that quadrant more ?power? but the ensemble structurally remains the same. To re-organize the conventional relational pattern into novel arrangements of the 4 quadrants (with the quadrants in hand) may be the way new ?third spaces? open new ontologies and epistemologies within social formations. the ?goal? remains the same [opening third s/places] but the relational patterning of the quadrants remains plural. if I am making links that don?t make sense and not expressing a legitimate knowledge [too idio in formation] just ignore. I was reflecting on William James notion of a pluralistic world of beliefs. Larry Sent from Windows Mail From: ablunden@mira.net Sent: ?Friday?, ?September? ?4?, ?2015 ?5?:?28? ?PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Haydi, on the question of ontology and epistemology ... Ontology is the study of being. That does not mean that it is concerned only with independently existing entities. It is the study of what forms of being there are, such as "thoughts". In recent decades this has come to mean a person or a culture's belief in the array of different entities that may be talked of, e.g. gods, classes or individuals, so it is an aspect of cultural difference. Epistemology is the study of knowing, in particular the limits and validity of knowledge. It is not necessarily a study of reflection. In recent decades it has comes to mean a person or a culture's beliefs about the legitimate sources of knowledge, e.g. priests, books or experience, etc. It was Hegel who first proposed that these sciences were bankrupt and should be transcended, because every social formation had its own integral "epistemology" and "ontology" and there was no final answer to the question these sciences proposed, so Hegel's view leads us to the modern way of talking about epistemologies and ontologies in the plural and aspects of a way of thinking and acting in the world. Hegel's Ontology is the first Book of the Logic, and I can see a sense in which you could say that the Second Book is about epistemology, but I don't think this is accurate. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 5/09/2015 7:08 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > P.S. Many a time I've made efforts , asked others , to differentiate between ONTOLOGY and EPISTEMOLOGY ; yet I've stayed on the same spot . First thesis of Feuerbach tells us if it's the case that we imagine / conceive the objects there to themselves without any wrestling on our part to get involved with them , then science / genuine materialism would not present any meaning to us . All things arise from the wrestling and the involvement . On this point , too , in either case , our work and thinking power are involved except that with ontology , we try to conceive things as existent and trace them as external transformables in themselves while with epistemology we deal with the pertaining ideas as reflexions . Then , in the natural and physical sciences , by concrete we mean "of matter" , corporeal , while in philosophy and gnoseology which is the province of the second of our division , knowledge , concrete , of necessity , would mean conceptual , the highest and most valued categorial philosophical term . > In what ways am I completely mistaken ? > Best > Haydi > > From ablunden@mira.net Sat Sep 5 00:20:00 2015 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2015 17:20:00 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <55ea891c.4515460a.25115.ffffd573@mx.google.com> References: <55e9c7e2.4410460a.b1572.ffff859b@mx.google.com> <1515521538.2418985.1441400930198.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>, <55EA3736.4080508@mira.net> <55ea891c.4515460a.25115.ffffd573@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <55EA97A0.8070700@mira.net> My apologies if I caused you puzzlement, Larry. Formerly, before Hegel, philosophers argued about what it meant to say something existed, whether only sensations existed, or ideal types, or matter, etc., and about the limits to knowledge, whether it was possible to know something which could never be experienced, whether a clear idea was proof of knowledge, etc. These argument went on from ancient times into Hegel's own life time and never reached a conclusion, but Ontology and Epistemology were taught as subjects in the University. Although I think the fashion of referring to these in the plural is from the last few decades, not an invention of Hegel's, Hegel subsumed these "subjects" into his Logic, and never discussed them in singular or plural so far as I can remember, after 1807. Each formation of consciousness (culture if you will) has its own "ontology" and "epistemology," which collapses under internal criticism, as demonstrated in his Logic., Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 5/09/2015 3:36 PM, lpscholar2@gmail.com wrote: > Andy, Haydi, > I also am puzzling on this topic and reflecting on having > the 2x2 grid in hand to help refer to notions of the > general, abstract, ontology and epistemology in relation > to the idio, singular, specific, unique. > > Andy, you suggest Hegel came to realize that both ontology > and epistemology are actually PLURAL ontologies and > epistemologies that emerge within social formations. > however, > the assumption that with the realization of their plural > *character* these concepts then become bankrupt and must > be *transcended* leaves me puzzled? > why with the realization of both plural ontologies and > plural epistemologies actually residing in ?beliefs? do we > feel compelled to transcend or go beyond the plural > character of ontologies and epistemologies. > > in other words, using the 4 quadrants in a 2x2 grid as a > guide is it not possible to acknowledge the ?adequacy? of > each quadrant as expressing a particular character of our > pluralistic ontologies and epistemologies and each having > value without the necessity of reducing one quadrant to be > derivative of the other quadrant. > Mike and Peg explored the metaphor of ?amplification? and > is it possible that to amplify any particular quadrant > gives that quadrant more ?power? but the ensemble > structurally remains the same. To re-organize the > conventional relational pattern into novel arrangements of > the 4 quadrants (with the quadrants in hand) may be the > way new ?third spaces? open new ontologies and > epistemologies within social formations. the ?goal? > remains the same [opening third s/places] but the > relational patterning of the quadrants remains plural. > > if I am making links that don?t make sense and not > expressing a legitimate knowledge [too idio in formation] > just ignore. I was reflecting on William James notion of a > pluralistic world of beliefs. > Larry > > > > > > Sent from Windows Mail > > *From:* ablunden@mira.net > *Sent:* ?Friday?, ?September? ?4?, ?2015 ?5?:?28? ?PM > *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Haydi, on the question of ontology and epistemology ... > Ontology is the study of being. That does not mean that it > is concerned only with independently existing entities. It > is the study of what forms of being there are, such as > "thoughts". In recent decades this has come to mean a person > or a culture's belief in the array of different entities > that may be talked of, e.g. gods, classes or individuals, so > it is an aspect of cultural difference. > Epistemology is the study of knowing, in particular the > limits and validity of knowledge. It is not necessarily a > study of reflection. In recent decades it has comes to mean > a person or a culture's beliefs about the legitimate sources > of knowledge, e.g. priests, books or experience, etc. > It was Hegel who first proposed that these sciences were > bankrupt and should be transcended, because every social > formation had its own integral "epistemology" and "ontology" > and there was no final answer to the question these sciences > proposed, so Hegel's view leads us to the modern way of > talking about epistemologies and ontologies in the plural > and aspects of a way of thinking and acting in the world. > Hegel's Ontology is the first Book of the Logic, and I can > see a sense in which you could say that the Second Book is > about epistemology, but I don't think this is accurate. > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 5/09/2015 7:08 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > > P.S. Many a time I've made efforts , asked others , to > differentiate between ONTOLOGY and EPISTEMOLOGY ; yet I've > stayed on the same spot . First thesis of Feuerbach tells > us if it's the case that we imagine / conceive the objects > there to themselves without any wrestling on our part to > get involved with them , then science / genuine > materialism would not present any meaning to us . All > things arise from the wrestling and the involvement . On > this point , too , in either case , our work and thinking > power are involved except that with ontology , we try to > conceive things as existent and trace them as external > transformables in themselves while with epistemology we > deal with the pertaining ideas as reflexions . Then , in > the natural and physical sciences , by concrete we mean > "of matter" , corporeal , while in philosophy and > gnoseology which is the province of the second of our > division , knowledge , concrete , of necessity , would > mean conceptual , the highest and most valued categorial > philosophical term . > > In what ways am I completely mistaken ? > > Best > > Haydi > > > > > From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Sat Sep 5 04:15:52 2015 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 11:15:52 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <55EA3736.4080508@mira.net> References: <55EA3736.4080508@mira.net> Message-ID: <1061280788.2615726.1441451752458.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Andy, Thanks for the explanation ! A large part of my personal debate was about the theses , the first one in particular and you admitted that you'd seen nothing richer than them . Then , it was not a matter of recent decades , revisions , innovations or the other Marx or Marxes . ?To put it simply even today : The table exists and the idea of the table exists . Does creating fuzzy foggy boundaries in between help resolve our problems ??Now , that's not our main point of reference . What you're talking about was my Post-Script , an addendum to a major point . Shortly , within our bounds (Vygotsky Marxist School of the Time and beyond) , could we say : "All true concepts are both universal and concrete" ? I would not provide support for this because , I think , David Kellog or Mike is able to locate if such a saying exists within Vygotsky's Collected works or some other Vygotskian's . My mind triggers blazingly though it's too old .? Larry ! I'll read your post again and try to provide an answer . Many thanks ! Best Haydi ? From: Andy Blunden To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Saturday, 5 September 2015, 4:58:38 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science Haydi, on the question of ontology and epistemology ... Ontology is the study of being. That does not mean that it is concerned only with independently existing entities. It is the study of what forms of being there are, such as "thoughts". In recent decades this has come to mean a person or a culture's belief in the array of different entities that may be talked of, e.g. gods, classes or individuals, so it is an aspect of cultural difference. Epistemology is the study of knowing, in particular the limits and validity of knowledge. It is not necessarily a study of reflection. In recent decades it has comes to mean a person or a culture's beliefs about the legitimate sources of knowledge, e.g. priests, books or experience, etc. It was Hegel who first proposed that these sciences were bankrupt and should be transcended, because every social formation had its own integral "epistemology" and "ontology" and there was no final answer to the question these sciences proposed, so Hegel's view leads us to the modern way of talking about epistemologies and ontologies in the plural and aspects of a way of thinking and acting in the world. Hegel's Ontology is the first Book of the Logic, and I can see a sense in which you could say that the Second Book is about epistemology, but I don't think this is accurate. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 5/09/2015 7:08 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > P.S. Many a time I've made efforts , asked others , to differentiate between ONTOLOGY and EPISTEMOLOGY ; yet I've stayed on the same spot . First thesis of Feuerbach tells us if it's the case that we imagine / conceive the objects there to themselves without any wrestling on our part to get involved with them , then science / genuine materialism would not present any meaning to us . All things arise from the wrestling and the involvement . On this point , too , in either case , our work and thinking power are involved except that with ontology , we try to conceive things as existent and trace them as external transformables in themselves while with epistemology we deal with the pertaining ideas as reflexions . Then , in the natural and physical sciences , by concrete we mean "of matter" , corporeal , while in philosophy and gnoseology which is the province of the second of our division , knowledge , concrete , of necessity , would mean conceptual , the highest and most valued categorial philosophical term . > In what ways am I completely mistaken ? > Best > Haydi > > From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Sat Sep 5 04:15:52 2015 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 11:15:52 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <55EA3736.4080508@mira.net> References: <55EA3736.4080508@mira.net> Message-ID: <1061280788.2615726.1441451752458.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Andy, Thanks for the explanation ! A large part of my personal debate was about the theses , the first one in particular and you admitted that you'd seen nothing richer than them . Then , it was not a matter of recent decades , revisions , innovations or the other Marx or Marxes . ?To put it simply even today : The table exists and the idea of the table exists . Does creating fuzzy foggy boundaries in between help resolve our problems ??Now , that's not our main point of reference . What you're talking about was my Post-Script , an addendum to a major point . Shortly , within our bounds (Vygotsky Marxist School of the Time and beyond) , could we say : "All true concepts are both universal and concrete" ? I would not provide support for this because , I think , David Kellog or Mike is able to locate if such a saying exists within Vygotsky's Collected works or some other Vygotskian's . My mind triggers blazingly though it's too old .? Larry ! I'll read your post again and try to provide an answer . Many thanks ! Best Haydi ? From: Andy Blunden To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Saturday, 5 September 2015, 4:58:38 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science Haydi, on the question of ontology and epistemology ... Ontology is the study of being. That does not mean that it is concerned only with independently existing entities. It is the study of what forms of being there are, such as "thoughts". In recent decades this has come to mean a person or a culture's belief in the array of different entities that may be talked of, e.g. gods, classes or individuals, so it is an aspect of cultural difference. Epistemology is the study of knowing, in particular the limits and validity of knowledge. It is not necessarily a study of reflection. In recent decades it has comes to mean a person or a culture's beliefs about the legitimate sources of knowledge, e.g. priests, books or experience, etc. It was Hegel who first proposed that these sciences were bankrupt and should be transcended, because every social formation had its own integral "epistemology" and "ontology" and there was no final answer to the question these sciences proposed, so Hegel's view leads us to the modern way of talking about epistemologies and ontologies in the plural and aspects of a way of thinking and acting in the world. Hegel's Ontology is the first Book of the Logic, and I can see a sense in which you could say that the Second Book is about epistemology, but I don't think this is accurate. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 5/09/2015 7:08 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > P.S. Many a time I've made efforts , asked others , to differentiate between ONTOLOGY and EPISTEMOLOGY ; yet I've stayed on the same spot . First thesis of Feuerbach tells us if it's the case that we imagine / conceive the objects there to themselves without any wrestling on our part to get involved with them , then science / genuine materialism would not present any meaning to us . All things arise from the wrestling and the involvement . On this point , too , in either case , our work and thinking power are involved except that with ontology , we try to conceive things as existent and trace them as external transformables in themselves while with epistemology we deal with the pertaining ideas as reflexions . Then , in the natural and physical sciences , by concrete we mean "of matter" , corporeal , while in philosophy and gnoseology which is the province of the second of our division , knowledge , concrete , of necessity , would mean conceptual , the highest and most valued categorial philosophical term . > In what ways am I completely mistaken ? > Best > Haydi > > From ablunden@mira.net Sat Sep 5 05:17:41 2015 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2015 22:17:41 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <1061280788.2615726.1441451752458.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <55EA3736.4080508@mira.net> <1061280788.2615726.1441451752458.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <55EADD65.5070508@mira.net> But Haydi, those "fuzzy foggy boundaries" are revolutionary practice! Now you see it now you don't! Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 5/09/2015 9:15 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > Andy, > > Thanks for the explanation ! > > A large part of my personal debate was about the theses , > the first one in particular and you admitted that you'd > seen nothing richer than them . Then , it was not a matter > of recent decades , revisions , innovations or the other > Marx or Marxes . To put it simply even today : The table > exists and the idea of the table exists . Does creating > fuzzy foggy boundaries in between help resolve our > problems ? Now , that's not our main point of reference . > > > What you're talking about was my Post-Script , an addendum > to a major point . Shortly , within our bounds (Vygotsky > Marxist School of the Time and beyond) , could we say : > "All true concepts are both universal and concrete" ? > > I would not provide support for this because , I think , > David Kellog or Mike is able to locate if such a saying > exists within Vygotsky's Collected works or some other > Vygotskian's . My mind triggers blazingly though it's too > old . > > Larry ! I'll read your post again and try to provide an > answer . Many thanks ! > > Best > > Haydi > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Andy Blunden > *To:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > *Sent:* Saturday, 5 September 2015, 4:58:38 > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > Haydi, on the question of ontology and epistemology ... > Ontology is the study of being. That does not mean that it > is concerned only with independently existing entities. It > is the study of what forms of being there are, such as > "thoughts". In recent decades this has come to mean a person > or a culture's belief in the array of different entities > that may be talked of, e.g. gods, classes or individuals, so > it is an aspect of cultural difference. > Epistemology is the study of knowing, in particular the > limits and validity of knowledge. It is not necessarily a > study of reflection. In recent decades it has comes to mean > a person or a culture's beliefs about the legitimate sources > of knowledge, e.g. priests, books or experience, etc. > It was Hegel who first proposed that these sciences were > bankrupt and should be transcended, because every social > formation had its own integral "epistemology" and "ontology" > and there was no final answer to the question these sciences > proposed, so Hegel's view leads us to the modern way of > talking about epistemologies and ontologies in the plural > and aspects of a way of thinking and acting in the world. > Hegel's Ontology is the first Book of the Logic, and I can > see a sense in which you could say that the Second Book is > about epistemology, but I don't think this is accurate. > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > On 5/09/2015 7:08 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > > P.S. Many a time I've made efforts , asked others , to > differentiate between ONTOLOGY and EPISTEMOLOGY ; yet I've > stayed on the same spot . First thesis of Feuerbach tells > us if it's the case that we imagine / conceive the objects > there to themselves without any wrestling on our part to > get involved with them , then science / genuine > materialism would not present any meaning to us . All > things arise from the wrestling and the involvement . On > this point , too , in either case , our work and thinking > power are involved except that with ontology , we try to > conceive things as existent and trace them as external > transformables in themselves while with epistemology we > deal with the pertaining ideas as reflexions . Then , in > the natural and physical sciences , by concrete we mean > "of matter" , corporeal , while in philosophy and > gnoseology which is the province of the second of our > division , knowledge , concrete , of necessity , would > mean conceptual , the highest and most valued categorial > philosophical term . > > In what ways am I completely mistaken ? > > Best > > Haydi > > > > > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sat Sep 5 07:19:45 2015 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 07:19:45 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <55EADD65.5070508@mira.net> References: <55EA3736.4080508@mira.net> <1061280788.2615726.1441451752458.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <55EADD65.5070508@mira.net> Message-ID: <55eafa3e.a566440a.23aba.02e8@mx.google.com> yes, The question of boundaries outlines and creation itself as concepts. Are these boundary "markers" pre existing forms with pre existing relations Or is the actual emergence of particular boundaries and formations such as (true concepts) actually more fuzzy and emergent phenomena? We can then AMPLIFY a particular "quadrant" and give it more "value" and "character" and in the process more definition and difference with our making "de/cisions" However, if we stop here at "de/cision we are in the quadrant of science (which may kill to di/sect and analyze.) we imagine this quadrant containing "true concepts" and being causes "of" events. Are we AMPLIFYING a particular quadrant and with this magnification this quadrant is sensed as more "real" and "true". Or is it possible that each quadrant has its own "character" and each opens us to an aspect of a deeper "truth" that the presupposed boundaries (as markers) are actually showing as more fuzzy? I am trying to honour pluralism and each quadrant. Is there a place here for "morphic" truth and "meta" morphic truth. This may be a romantic place that transforms "science" as actually being plural? -----Original Message----- From: "Andy Blunden" Sent: ?2015-?09-?05 5:19 AM To: "?Haydi Zulfei? ?" ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science But Haydi, those "fuzzy foggy boundaries" are revolutionary practice! Now you see it now you don't! Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 5/09/2015 9:15 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > Andy, > > Thanks for the explanation ! > > A large part of my personal debate was about the theses , > the first one in particular and you admitted that you'd > seen nothing richer than them . Then , it was not a matter > of recent decades , revisions , innovations or the other > Marx or Marxes . To put it simply even today : The table > exists and the idea of the table exists . Does creating > fuzzy foggy boundaries in between help resolve our > problems ? Now , that's not our main point of reference . > > > What you're talking about was my Post-Script , an addendum > to a major point . Shortly , within our bounds (Vygotsky > Marxist School of the Time and beyond) , could we say : > "All true concepts are both universal and concrete" ? > > I would not provide support for this because , I think , > David Kellog or Mike is able to locate if such a saying > exists within Vygotsky's Collected works or some other > Vygotskian's . My mind triggers blazingly though it's too > old . > > Larry ! I'll read your post again and try to provide an > answer . Many thanks ! > > Best > > Haydi > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Andy Blunden > *To:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > *Sent:* Saturday, 5 September 2015, 4:58:38 > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > Haydi, on the question of ontology and epistemology ... > Ontology is the study of being. That does not mean that it > is concerned only with independently existing entities. It > is the study of what forms of being there are, such as > "thoughts". In recent decades this has come to mean a person > or a culture's belief in the array of different entities > that may be talked of, e.g. gods, classes or individuals, so > it is an aspect of cultural difference. > Epistemology is the study of knowing, in particular the > limits and validity of knowledge. It is not necessarily a > study of reflection. In recent decades it has comes to mean > a person or a culture's beliefs about the legitimate sources > of knowledge, e.g. priests, books or experience, etc. > It was Hegel who first proposed that these sciences were > bankrupt and should be transcended, because every social > formation had its own integral "epistemology" and "ontology" > and there was no final answer to the question these sciences > proposed, so Hegel's view leads us to the modern way of > talking about epistemologies and ontologies in the plural > and aspects of a way of thinking and acting in the world. > Hegel's Ontology is the first Book of the Logic, and I can > see a sense in which you could say that the Second Book is > about epistemology, but I don't think this is accurate. > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > On 5/09/2015 7:08 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > > P.S. Many a time I've made efforts , asked others , to > differentiate between ONTOLOGY and EPISTEMOLOGY ; yet I've > stayed on the same spot . First thesis of Feuerbach tells > us if it's the case that we imagine / conceive the objects > there to themselves without any wrestling on our part to > get involved with them , then science / genuine > materialism would not present any meaning to us . All > things arise from the wrestling and the involvement . On > this point , too , in either case , our work and thinking > power are involved except that with ontology , we try to > conceive things as existent and trace them as external > transformables in themselves while with epistemology we > deal with the pertaining ideas as reflexions . Then , in > the natural and physical sciences , by concrete we mean > "of matter" , corporeal , while in philosophy and > gnoseology which is the province of the second of our > division , knowledge , concrete , of necessity , would > mean conceptual , the highest and most valued categorial > philosophical term . > > In what ways am I completely mistaken ? > > Best > > Haydi > > > > > > From h2cmng@yahoo.co.uk Sat Sep 5 08:45:57 2015 From: h2cmng@yahoo.co.uk (peter jones) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 15:45:57 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <55E710F5.2020903@mira.net> References: <55E710F5.2020903@mira.net> Message-ID: <729975170.2722417.1441467957848.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Sorry I struggle to keep up...There are clearly contexts in which Hodges' model would reduce to emphasize one domain. Can we say the model collapses catastrophically? The obvious example - and a diagnostic one - is an individual suffering a sudden collapse and apparent loss of consciousness. The priorities are physical - basic life support - we also need to screen the situation, environment lest we become the next casualty. As Peg points out the other panes are still there, but they are relevant, salient, in-play at this emergency point in time. As process is followed however it won't be long until questions are asked about next of kin, assuring dignity due to clothing being cut/removed, what does policy say about the equipment used....? Thanks to Rafi ?for the paper by Kieran Healy on 'nuance' which notes: It is the act of making?or the call to make?some bit of theory ?richer? or ?moresophisticated? by adding complexity to it, usually by way of some additional dimension,level, or aspect, but in the absence of any strong means of disciplining or specifyingthe relationship between the new elements and the existing ones (p.2). I'm not sure if the purposes of the model in my studies is assisted (in some way?) by seeking to conjoin all academic disciplines (make it richer) and not just sociology, the intersubjective (humanistic)? In health (especially) it is essential for tools to be evidence based (and yet this too is another debate). Hodges' model isn't a theory and I think some people dismiss it as simplistic based on the 2x2 structure.? Hodges' is concerned with what kind of domain knowledge is needed to solve a problem, pose a question, well formed argument... at a certain point in time (context). The structure of the model arises from questions of 'who' (individual OR group); and the types of things (humanistic-mechanistic) that healthcare workers then do for said individual's - groups. In the Romantic Science sense is Hodges' model a series of (potential) conceptual spaces that as a whole is pantological? Of these nuance traps, Sociology has historically been most prone to the nuanceof the conceptual framework (Rule 1997, Chapter 4) (p.3). Must look up Rule. This is interesting too as 'holism' (and with it Romantic Science?) as in (w)holistic - integrated care is often dismissed as a crystal-faced light-reflecting-refracting fad. Peter Jones @h2cm From: Andy Blunden To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Wednesday, 2 September 2015, 16:08 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science So this is a diagnostic tool, Peg? Could you spell this out a little more for someone who still doesn't grasp what you are talking about? :) andy intrigued. ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 3/09/2015 12:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > What I did not make clear is that the JoHari window is not really the same as a matrix.? It is a different kind of tool than I think David and Peter are thinking about. > Here's the trick: You change the pane sizes to emphasize the one of the four panes you are currently acting on -- but all four panes are always there. > So you can make the "concrete specific" pane HUGE by moving the top bottom inner divider far to the right and moving the left right inner divider far to the bottom.? Or you can move only one of the? dividers.? And you can move the dividers without such extremes. > > Even if a diagnosis/treatment only does the first move I described, there's little abstract involved.? I don't mind that so much if the actors are involved in an emergency triage activity, but without the abstract you are going on observables very influenced by perceptual and cultural access of the actors and you might not even have the most useful template from the general to guide/evaluate your trials and errors.? So you'd better shift the panes pretty soon before things get way off base. > > You can also fool around with the arrangement of the terms that name the panes:? Do you get more out of concrete vs. specific or more out of specific vs. concrete (in David's terms the anchors for the cline).? Same for abstract vs. concrete or concrete vs. abstract. > PG > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Peg Griffin > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:55 PM > To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > As far as I understand those terms (nomothetic and idiographic), the combined motor method does unite them and so arrives at dual stimulation, given the non-accidental mosaic. > But I don't know that my understanding goes far enough or too far! > Peg > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:08 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > Is that simultaneously uniting the nomothetic and idiographic, Peg? That is the way Luria talked about it. > mike > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > ??? >> Just in a short-hand: >> >> Concrete Specific:? Zasetsky (The man with the shattered world) >> >> Concrete General: People with traumatic brain injury during WWII >> >> Abstract General: Brain is a mosaic of specific domains with actions >> that interact in dual stimulations (not pure will) >> >> Abstract Specific:? A man acts to recall using images; it fails on a >> certain target.? The man starts appears to abandon the recall by >> acting an intimately related system ? e.g., reciting the alphabet. >> But the recital is ?interrupted? when it bumps into the original >> recall target and the recall is successful. >> >> >> >> For diagnosis and/or treatment, we must rise to the concrete specific. >> >> >> >> Sorry I don?t have time to develop this further but I am sure many on >> this list do, and I know that Luria and Sacks did so in wondrous and >> glorious instances. >> >> Peg >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:21 AM >> To: Peg Griffin; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >> >> >> >> Could you give an example, Peg? >> andy >> >>? ? _____ >> >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> >> On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: >> >> What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and Sachs ? >> with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made (based >> on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and Harrington >> Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill in each of the four cells in >> the square about an issue of interest.? It helps me think about >> genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. >>? ? Concrete? ? ? Abstract >> Specific >> General >> >> A romantic square, >> Peg >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rod >> Parker-Rees >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM >> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >> >> Thanks for posting this, Andy. >> >> I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his >> reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his observation >> that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event isolated >> from other things or events. Its real object is to see and understand >> the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'. >> >> We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or less) >> on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but our >> communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using these >> categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of science >> but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use of >> language and more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The >> romantic focus on an 'individual' can only ever be conducted in the >> medium of a very un-individual language and no person's life could >> possibly be understood without reference to relationships with other >> persons which then spread roots and branches out to a forest of connections, causes and consequences. >> >> David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of theory if >> one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case and >> Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the >> concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but the >> creative sources of great historical events and the important ideas >> and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the contribution >> individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than themselves >> but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want neither to split >> living reality into its elementary components nor to represent the >> wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that lose the properties of the phenomena themselves'. >> >> I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is >> particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how all >> minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' >> lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory >> associations which words bring with them in a way which, for most of >> us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a >> particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that every >> person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, >> behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface of a >> pool of connections and associations which can never be shared with or >> known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can only >> go so far in understanding another person's understanding and much >> less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone is a >> very different thing from being able to share that knowledge in a >> rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of the >> spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge is >> entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that swirl beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! >> >> I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what lies >> beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young children >> are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so powerfully >> dominated by abstractions. >> >> All the best, >> >> Rod >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu >> ] >> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >> Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >> >> Try this, in Word this time. >> Andy >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: >> >> ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the >> chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST be >> somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. >> >> After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas seems >> appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended essay's >> on his view of Romantic Science. >> >> It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, were >> not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of their >> enterprise encompassed those fields and more. >> >> Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual case in >> no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their work. >> Nor does Luria argue so. >> >> mike >> ? >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg > > wrote: >> >>? ? ? I think the problem with this view of romantic science >>? ? ? is that it >>? ? ? completely precludes building a psychology on a >>? ? ? sociology. In that sense >>? ? ? (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist >>? ? ? at all. Vygotsky >>? ? ? certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the >>? ? ? individual case"; such >>? ? ? an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of >>? ? ? theory. I'm not sure >>? ? ? Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a >>? ? ? Shattered Mind" and >>? ? ? "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. >>? ? ? Remember the main >>? ? ? criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human >>? ? ? Conflicts" was always that >>? ? ? it was too quantitative. >> >>? ? ? There are, of course, some areas of psychology that >>? ? ? are well studied as >>? ? ? case histories. Recently, I've been looking into >>? ? ? suicidology, and in >>? ? ? particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered >>? ? ? the linguistic >>? ? ? analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have >>? ? ? been influenced, as >>? ? ? early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work >>? ? ? on schizophrinia). >>? ? ? Now you would think that if ever there was a field >>? ? ? that would benefit from >>? ? ? total immersion in the individual case, this is one. >>? ? ? But Shneidman says >>? ? ? that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal >>? ? ? phrases, and as a >>? ? ? consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively >>? ? ? (one of his first >>? ? ? studies was simply to sort a pile of real and >>? ? ? imitation suicide notes and >>? ? ? carefully note the criteria he had when he made >>? ? ? correct judgements). And of >>? ? ? course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide >>? ? ? is that the individual >>? ? ? case can be utterly disregarded, since the great >>? ? ? variations are >>? ? ? sociological and the psychological variables all seem >>? ? ? trivial, transient, >>? ? ? or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a >>? ? ? large scale (as we must >>? ? ? these days). Shneidman says he has never read a >>? ? ? suicide note he would want >>? ? ? to have written. >> >>? ? ? David Kellogg >> >> >> >>? ? ? On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden >>? ? ? > ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: >> >>? ? ? > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' >>? ? ? style of Romantic >>? ? ? > Science was his complete immersion in the individual >>? ? ? case before him, and >>? ? ? > development of a science of complete persons. The >>? ? ? paradigm of this type of >>? ? ? > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative >>? ? ? Science" I suppose. The >>? ? ? > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each >>? ? ? case, e.g. facial >>? ? ? > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a >>? ? ? "covering law" for just this >>? ? ? > aspect. >>? ? ? > Andy >>? ? ? > >>? ? ? ------------------------------------------------------------ >>? ? ? > *Andy Blunden* >>? ? ? > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>? ? ? < >> http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/> >>? ? ? > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >>? ? ? > >>? ? ? >> Mike, >>? ? ? >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that >>? ? ? naysayers were cited in >>? ? ? >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering >>? ? ? if some of that push back >>? ? ? >> was related to his practice of romantic science, >>? ? ? which, if I understand >>? ? ? >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in >>? ? ? the phenomena of >>? ? ? >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, >>? ? ? for example, immersed >>? ? ? >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His >>? ? ? writing prefigures the cell >>? ? ? >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of >>? ? ? microscopes could not confirm >>? ? ? >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner >>? ? ? and Sacks makes me >>? ? ? >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at >>? ? ? issue. Different styles >>? ? ? >> of research bring different construals. This may be >>? ? ? the bane of >>? ? ? >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really >>? ? ? make Sacks less of a >>? ? ? >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? >>? ? ? >> Henry >>? ? ? >> >>? ? ? >> >>? ? ? >> >>? ? ? >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole >>? ? ? > >> wrote: >>? ? ? >>> >>? ? ? >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our >>? ? ? connections with Luria and >>? ? ? >>> the fact that we >>? ? ? >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a >>? ? ? romantic science. He was a >>? ? ? >>> shy >>? ? ? >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, >>? ? ? and the difference >>? ? ? >>> between >>? ? ? >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the >>? ? ? interview with them that >>? ? ? >>> someone >>? ? ? >>> pirated on >>? ? ? >>> to youtube. >>? ? ? >>> >>? ? ? >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, >>? ? ? engaging intellectually all >>? ? ? >>> the while. >>? ? ? >>> >>? ? ? >>> mike >>? ? ? >>> >>? ? ? >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin >>? ? ? > martinl@azscience.org>> >>? ? ? >>> wrote: >>? ? ? >>> >>? ? ? >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the >>? ? ? privilege of spending an >>? ? ? >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting >>? ? ? Jerry Bruner and Carol >>? ? ? >>>> Feldman in NY.? I stood in for Sylvia who >>? ? ? couldn't make the dinner - it >>? ? ? >>>> was >>? ? ? >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you >>? ? ? ever hear from Bruner? I >>? ? ? >>>> wonder if he's still active. >>? ? ? >>>> >>? ? ? >>>> Laura >>? ? ? >>>> >>? ? ? >>>> >>? ? ? >>>> Sent from my iPad >>? ? ? >>>> >>? ? ? >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole >>? ? ? > >> wrote: >>? ? ? >>>> >>? ? ? >>>> Dear Colleagues --- >>? ? ? >>>> >>? ? ? >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news >>? ? ? that Oliver Sacks has >>? ? ? >>>> succumbed to cancer. >>? ? ? >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. >>? ? ? >>>> mike >>? ? ? >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>? ? ? >>>> >>? ? ? >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM >>? ? ? >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; >>? ? ? Neurologist and Author >>? ? ? >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks >>? ? ? >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com? > lchcmike@gmail.com> >>? ? ? >>>> >>? ? ? >>>> >>? ? ? >>>>? Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com >>? ? ? : >> Oliver Sacks Dies at >>? ? ? 82; Neurologist >>? ? ? >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks >>? ? ? >>>> < >>? ? ? >>>> >> >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 >> a < >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 >> a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 >> 972441657668®i_id=0> >> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >>? ? ? >>>> By >>? ? ? >>>> GREGORY COWLES >>? ? ? >>>> >>? ? ? >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest >>? ? ? pathways in >>? ? ? >>>> best-selling >>? ? ? >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife >>? ? ? for a Hat,? achieving >>? ? ? >>>> a >>? ? ? >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. >>? ? ? >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: >>? ? ? http://nyti.ms/1LL040D >>? ? ? >>>> < >>? ? ? >>>> >> >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 >> a < >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 >> a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 >> 972441657668®i_id=0> >> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >>? ? ? >>>> To >>? ? ? >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times >>? ? ? articles, subscribe today. >>? ? ? >>>> See >>? ? ? >>>> Subscription Options. >>? ? ? >>>> < >>? ? ? >>>> >> >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC >> IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP >> AvEGfk= >> < >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC >> IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP >> AvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_i >> d=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> >>? ? ? >>>> To >>? ? ? >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add >>? ? ? nytdirect@nytimes.com? > nytdirect@nytimes.com> >>? ? ? to your >>? ? ? >>>> address book. Advertisement >>? ? ? >>>> >>? ? ? >>>> < >>? ? ? >>>> >>? ? ? http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto < >> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secu >> re.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn >> 1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=Mis >> tressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistr >> essamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview> >> &opzn&page= >> secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview >>? ? ? >>>> > >>? ? ? >>>> Copyright 2015 >>? ? ? >>>> < >>? ? ? >>>> >> >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP >> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ== >> < >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP >> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31 >> 502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668&r >> egi_id=0> >> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 >>? ? ? >>>> > >>? ? ? >>>> | The New York Times Company >>? ? ? >>>> < >>? ? ? >>>> >> >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcS >> h < >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcS >> h&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 >> 972441657668®i_id=0> >> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 >>? ? ? >>>> > >>? ? ? >>>> | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 >>? ? ? >>>> >>? ? ? >>>> >>? ? ? >>>> >>? ? ? >>>> >>? ? ? >>>> >>? ? ? >>>> -- >>? ? ? >>>> >>? ? ? >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a >>? ? ? natural science with an >>? ? ? >>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>? ? ? >>>> >>? ? ? >>>> >>? ? ? >>>> >>? ? ? >>>> >>? ? ? >>> -- >>? ? ? >>> >>? ? ? >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a >>? ? ? natural science with an >>? ? ? >>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>? ? ? >>> >>? ? ? >> >>? ? ? >> >>? ? ? >> >>? ? ? > >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an >> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] < >> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> < >> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> >> >> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely >> for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not >> the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the >> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. >> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know >> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not >> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University >> accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to >> scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept >> responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this >> email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services >> unless accompanied by an official order form. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Sat Sep 5 09:06:06 2015 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 16:06:06 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <55EADD65.5070508@mira.net> References: <55EADD65.5070508@mira.net> Message-ID: <433236726.2727430.1441469166559.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Andy, The reason I came to you was Peg's authority and personality and brilliance of research . Now again I put my problem clearly : I have some supposition to the effect that "All true concepts are both concrete and universal" according to my previous explanation . If I'm mistaken , someone might be kind to justify the point . This is where I was led to during discussions .? P.S. What I wrote you as Marx's evaluation of Feuerbach not being "revolutionary" is at hand but I have some more important thing to say as to clarify what I meant by "fuzzy boundaries" .? I said of ontology as tending towards "external transformable/s [entities] . And you said of plurality of both terms . Now I give more explanation .? By that , I wouldn't have meant just rocks and stones . In this regard , in my personal correspondence I referred you to the wrestling and involvement and therefrom to "man and his world" . That is , man , the world , actions , interactions , processes , relations , relationships , so on so forth . That is , to the extent where man still remains "man" and "his world" remains "his world" . As I understand it , this is the dimension and limits of "ontology" .? But you're talking in a way that one might figure out that it's possible to blend some "matter" with some "idea" and some idea with some matter . This is what I meant by "fuzzy bordering" .? If , as you say , the being of thought (spatially temporally) is something and the knowing of thought something else , the former ontological , the latter , epistemological , then what are the neuronal processes taking place in the brain ? Wouldn't you agree that this latter case might be closer to "ontology" . I say we are either dealing with thought or with the thinking man ; that is they related but distinctive . And it's when we are dealing with the thinking man as "social being" that the problem of being "revolutionary" or "non-revolutionary" or "counter-revolutionary" occurs .? And it's O.K. for us to think over the well-known saying that "behind consciousness is BEING" . Does not this BEING , first of all , mean the Being who is born , who grows , lives , works , uses tools , acts , interacts , wrestles with , involves , gets engaged , enters processes , joins , communicates , socializes , fails , succeeds , dies , etc. ? Please first go to the first parag in full . Others are deletable . Best?Haydi? From: Andy Blunden To: ?Haydi Zulfei? ? ; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Saturday, 5 September 2015, 16:47:41 Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science But Haydi, those "fuzzy foggy boundaries" are revolutionary practice! Now you see it now you don't! Andy *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 5/09/2015 9:15 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: Andy, Thanks for the explanation ! A large part of my personal debate was about the theses , the first one in particular and you admitted that you'd seen nothing richer than them . Then , it was not a matter of recent decades , revisions , innovations or the other Marx or Marxes . ?To put it simply even today : The table exists and the idea of the table exists . Does creating fuzzy foggy boundaries in between help resolve our problems ??Now , that's not our main point of reference . What you're talking about was my Post-Script , an addendum to a major point . Shortly , within our bounds (Vygotsky Marxist School of the Time and beyond) , could we say : "All true concepts are both universal and concrete" ? I would not provide support for this because , I think , David Kellog or Mike is able to locate if such a saying exists within Vygotsky's Collected works or some other Vygotskian's . My mind triggers blazingly though it's too old .? Larry ! I'll read your post again and try to provide an answer . Many thanks ! Best Haydi ? From: Andy Blunden To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Saturday, 5 September 2015, 4:58:38 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science Haydi, on the question of ontology and epistemology ... Ontology is the study of being. That does not mean that it is concerned only with independently existing entities. It is the study of what forms of being there are, such as "thoughts". In recent decades this has come to mean a person or a culture's belief in the array of different entities that may be talked of, e.g. gods, classes or individuals, so it is an aspect of cultural difference. Epistemology is the study of knowing, in particular the limits and validity of knowledge. It is not necessarily a study of reflection. In recent decades it has comes to mean a person or a culture's beliefs about the legitimate sources of knowledge, e.g. priests, books or experience, etc. It was Hegel who first proposed that these sciences were bankrupt and should be transcended, because every social formation had its own integral "epistemology" and "ontology" and there was no final answer to the question these sciences proposed, so Hegel's view leads us to the modern way of talking about epistemologies and ontologies in the plural and aspects of a way of thinking and acting in the world. Hegel's Ontology is the first Book of the Logic, and I can see a sense in which you could say that the Second Book is about epistemology, but I don't think this is accurate. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 5/09/2015 7:08 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > P.S. Many a time I've made efforts , asked others , to differentiate between ONTOLOGY and EPISTEMOLOGY ; yet I've stayed on the same spot . First thesis of Feuerbach tells us if it's the case that we imagine / conceive the objects there to themselves without any wrestling on our part to get involved with them , then science / genuine materialism would not present any meaning to us . All things arise from the wrestling and the involvement . On this point , too , in either case , our work and thinking power are involved except that with ontology , we try to conceive things as existent and trace them as external transformables in themselves while with epistemology we deal with the pertaining ideas as reflexions . Then , in the natural and physical sciences , by concrete we mean "of matter" , corporeal , while in philosophy and gnoseology which is the province of the second of our division , knowledge , concrete , of necessity , would mean conceptual , the highest and most valued categorial philosophical term . > In what ways am I completely mistaken ? > Best > Haydi > > From h2cmng@yahoo.co.uk Sat Sep 5 09:11:37 2015 From: h2cmng@yahoo.co.uk (peter jones) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 16:11:37 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks 'Last Word' BBC Radio 4 In-Reply-To: <433236726.2727430.1441469166559.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <433236726.2727430.1441469166559.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <724524860.2727260.1441469497451.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, Joy Beverley, Oliver Sacks, Annette Worsley-Taylor, Last Word - BBC Radio 4 | ? | | ? | | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | | Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, Joy Beverley, Oliver Sacks, An...Matthew Bannister talks about a peer, a singer, a neurologist and a fashion promoter. | | | | View on www.bbc.co.uk | Preview by Yahoo | | | | ? | >From 15:25... From h2cmng@yahoo.co.uk Sat Sep 5 09:11:37 2015 From: h2cmng@yahoo.co.uk (peter jones) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 16:11:37 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks 'Last Word' BBC Radio 4 In-Reply-To: <433236726.2727430.1441469166559.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <433236726.2727430.1441469166559.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <724524860.2727260.1441469497451.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, Joy Beverley, Oliver Sacks, Annette Worsley-Taylor, Last Word - BBC Radio 4 | ? | | ? | | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | | Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, Joy Beverley, Oliver Sacks, An...Matthew Bannister talks about a peer, a singer, a neurologist and a fashion promoter. | | | | View on www.bbc.co.uk | Preview by Yahoo | | | | ? | >From 15:25... From s.franklin08@btinternet.com Sat Sep 5 09:27:36 2015 From: s.franklin08@btinternet.com (Shirley Franklin) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 17:27:36 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks 'Last Word' BBC Radio 4 In-Reply-To: <724524860.2727260.1441469497451.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <433236726.2727430.1441469166559.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <724524860.2727260.1441469497451.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <34B4D535-2D82-4710-9A94-1271E7030C32@btinternet.com> Living in Lord Montagu?s area, we mostly know him to have been a rather unpleasant person! > On 5 Sep 2015, at 17:11, peter jones wrote: > > Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, Joy Beverley, Oliver Sacks, Annette Worsley-Taylor, Last Word - BBC Radio 4 > > | | > | | | | | | | | > | Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, Joy Beverley, Oliver Sacks, An...Matthew Bannister talks about a peer, a singer, a neurologist and a fashion promoter. | > | | > | View on www.bbc.co.uk | Preview by Yahoo | > | | > | | > > >> From 15:25... > From ablunden@mira.net Sat Sep 5 17:37:10 2015 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2015 10:37:10 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <433236726.2727430.1441469166559.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <55EADD65.5070508@mira.net> <433236726.2727430.1441469166559.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <55EB8AB6.80901@mira.net> Haydi, you ask is it true that "All true concepts are both concrete and universal"? Vygotsky uses the expression "true concept" in a quite specific sense, namely a concept as it is first acquired purely through instruction. "Instruction" means in some institution. In this case a "true concept" is not concrete, it is abstract. A "true concept" becomes concrete over time, through experiences, but at first it is abstract. Because it is acquired from an institution a "true concept" is universal, that is to say, it is part of an entire social formation. These answers are given in the terms of Vygotsky's "Thinking and Speech," that is to say from the point of view of Psychology, yes, but Cultural Psychology, not positivist psychology. From a Hegelian point of view (not psychology), a true concept is abstract but also concrete, because it is the product and expression of an entire historical development. That's my answer to your first question. I can't deal with everything in this message. But ... About "fuzzy boundaries." The way you specify this question: 'to blend some "matter" with some "idea" and some idea with some matter' is ridiculed by Vygotsky. To talk of "fuzzy boundaries" implies that there are different kinds of stuff, i.e., existants, but by definition ideas are not existent. The way you pose the question reifies ideas. In the psychological sense, ideas are internal, psychological entities and it is absurd to think of blurring a "boundary" between consciousness and matter. No such boundary, fuzzy or firm, exists. I think the only consistent way to make sense of this is to accept that matter and consciousness are *relational* not absolute concepts. What you do, including what you think, is material (objective) from my point of view but from your point of view there is an absolute sharp distinction between your thoughts and your behaviour. And the movement of neurons is not thought, but merely the material substratum of thinking. Thinking is a function of the entire person. If I consider the activity of a person before me, there is both material behaviour (physical movements) and consciousness lying "behind" the behaviour. Thinking and behaving are united in activity, but they are not two different substances which are mixed or blurred, because you can (as an observer) make no distinction between them if you going to speak scientifically. Look at "Thinking and Speech." Does Vygotsky make a distinction between concepts and forms of action? I think not. These are just forms of abstraction from one integral, irreducible substance, activity. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 6/09/2015 2:06 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > > Dear Andy, > > The reason I came to you was Peg's authority and > personality and brilliance of research . Now again I put > my problem clearly : I have some supposition to the effect > that "All true concepts are both concrete and universal" > according to my previous explanation . If I'm mistaken , > someone might be kind to justify the point . This is where > I was led to during discussions . > > > > P.S. What I wrote you as Marx's evaluation of Feuerbach > not being "revolutionary" is at hand but I have some more > important thing to say as to clarify what I meant by > "fuzzy boundaries" . > > > I said of ontology as tending towards "external > transformable/s [entities] . And you said of plurality of > both terms . Now I give more explanation . > > > By that , I wouldn't have meant just rocks and stones . In > this regard , in my personal correspondence I referred you > to the wrestling and involvement and therefrom to "man and > his world" . That is , man , the world , actions , > interactions , processes , relations , relationships , so > on so forth . That is , to the extent where man still > remains "man" and "his world" remains "his world" . As I > understand it , this is the dimension and limits of > "ontology" . > > > But you're talking in a way that one might figure out that > it's possible to blend some "matter" with some "idea" and > some idea with some matter . This is what I meant by > "fuzzy bordering" . > > > If , as you say , the being of thought (spatially > temporally) is something and the knowing of thought > something else , the former ontological , the latter , > epistemological , then what are the neuronal processes > taking place in the brain ? Wouldn't you agree that this > latter case might be closer to "ontology" . I say we are > either dealing with thought or with the thinking man ; > that is they related but distinctive . And it's when we > are dealing with the thinking man as "social being" that > the problem of being "revolutionary" or > "non-revolutionary" or "counter-revolutionary" occurs . > > > And it's O.K. for us to think over the well-known saying > that "behind consciousness is BEING" . Does not this BEING > , first of all , mean the Being who is born , who grows , > lives , works , uses tools , acts , interacts , wrestles > with , involves , gets engaged , enters processes , joins > , communicates , socializes , fails , succeeds , dies , etc. ? > > > Please first go to the first parag in full . Others are > deletable . > > > Best > Haydi > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Andy Blunden > *To:* ?Haydi Zulfei? ? ; > "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Sent:* Saturday, 5 September 2015, 16:47:41 > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > But Haydi, those "fuzzy foggy boundaries" are > revolutionary practice! Now you see it now you don't! > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > On 5/09/2015 9:15 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: >> Andy, >> >> Thanks for the explanation ! >> >> A large part of my personal debate was about the theses , >> the first one in particular and you admitted that you'd >> seen nothing richer than them . Then , it was not a >> matter of recent decades , revisions , innovations or the >> other Marx or Marxes . To put it simply even today : The >> table exists and the idea of the table exists . Does >> creating fuzzy foggy boundaries in between help resolve >> our problems ? Now , that's not our main point of reference . >> >> >> What you're talking about was my Post-Script , an >> addendum to a major point . Shortly , within our bounds >> (Vygotsky Marxist School of the Time and beyond) , could >> we say : "All true concepts are both universal and >> concrete" ? >> >> I would not provide support for this because , I think , >> David Kellog or Mike is able to locate if such a saying >> exists within Vygotsky's Collected works or some other >> Vygotskian's . My mind triggers blazingly though it's too >> old . >> >> Larry ! I'll read your post again and try to provide an >> answer . Many thanks ! >> >> Best >> >> Haydi >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Andy Blunden >> >> *To:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> >> *Sent:* Saturday, 5 September 2015, 4:58:38 >> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >> >> Haydi, on the question of ontology and epistemology ... >> Ontology is the study of being. That does not mean that it >> is concerned only with independently existing entities. It >> is the study of what forms of being there are, such as >> "thoughts". In recent decades this has come to mean a person >> or a culture's belief in the array of different entities >> that may be talked of, e.g. gods, classes or individuals, so >> it is an aspect of cultural difference. >> Epistemology is the study of knowing, in particular the >> limits and validity of knowledge. It is not necessarily a >> study of reflection. In recent decades it has comes to mean >> a person or a culture's beliefs about the legitimate sources >> of knowledge, e.g. priests, books or experience, etc. >> It was Hegel who first proposed that these sciences were >> bankrupt and should be transcended, because every social >> formation had its own integral "epistemology" and "ontology" >> and there was no final answer to the question these sciences >> proposed, so Hegel's view leads us to the modern way of >> talking about epistemologies and ontologies in the plural >> and aspects of a way of thinking and acting in the world. >> Hegel's Ontology is the first Book of the Logic, and I can >> see a sense in which you could say that the Second Book is >> about epistemology, but I don't think this is accurate. >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> >> >> >> >> On 5/09/2015 7:08 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: >> > P.S. Many a time I've made efforts , asked others , to >> differentiate between ONTOLOGY and EPISTEMOLOGY ; yet >> I've stayed on the same spot . First thesis of Feuerbach >> tells us if it's the case that we imagine / conceive the >> objects there to themselves without any wrestling on our >> part to get involved with them , then science / genuine >> materialism would not present any meaning to us . All >> things arise from the wrestling and the involvement . On >> this point , too , in either case , our work and thinking >> power are involved except that with ontology , we try to >> conceive things as existent and trace them as external >> transformables in themselves while with epistemology we >> deal with the pertaining ideas as reflexions . Then , in >> the natural and physical sciences , by concrete we mean >> "of matter" , corporeal , while in philosophy and >> gnoseology which is the province of the second of our >> division , knowledge , concrete , of necessity , would >> mean conceptual , the highest and most valued categorial >> philosophical term . >> > In what ways am I completely mistaken ? >> > Best >> > Haydi >> > >> > >> >> > > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sat Sep 5 17:43:42 2015 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Larry Purss) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 17:43:42 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Question of True Concepts Message-ID: Haydi, I have transferred your question to a new thread as I want to follow you and open up three related questions. First, I will introduce two concepts: 1] social meaning 2] social interpretation. Can we differentiate the concept "social meaning" from "social interpretation"?. When we use different interpretations in our ACCOUNTS of "social meanings" to INSTANCE differences IN "social meanings" are we then "realizing" social meanings? OR Are these questions REFERENCING two different issues? 1st question: Do "social meanings" EXIST? 2nd question: What are the ADEQUATE or PROPER interpretations of "social meanings" if "social meanings" do in fact exist? 3rd question: What is the relation between "social meanings" and "social interpretations"? Are these questions related in any way to the concept of "true concepts". Haydi, I am not offering an answer to your question but am playing with the notion whether "true concepts" have fuzzy or defined boundaries and whether the "differences" are in fact related. I can imagine a scholar using the 2x2 grid to assist in focusing and concentrating on offering plural answers to my question. I wonder if it would be possible to offer an ADEQUATE AND PROPER account of "social meaning" from within each of the four quadrants. If it is possible to offer adequate and proper accounts from within each quadrant then a further question explores the the inter/relations between these quadrants. Also the question emerges that without the particular 4 quadrants being imagined by Peg and then created and given "in hand" [as designed figures] could the particular answers generated "exist" in the form they are here and now generated and be/come "true concepts"?. "plural" accounts do not mean "relative" accounts but it does mean "multi/versal" accounts in contrast to "uni/versal" accounts. In this plural version of accounts "true concepts" exist within cultural historical cicumstances that have fuzzy boundaries and to make clear and distinct outlines is to impose boundary markers and de/cisions that do not actually "exist" independently of the relations within which the de/cisions are imposed as particular accounts. This returns us to "social meanings" as distinct from "social interpretations" but neither one or the other is independent and existing as a self contained object IN ITSELF. As concepts they exist only within relation to each other. But we do "abide" within the concepts "social meanings" & "social interpretations. I know this may be tangential to the main theme of "romantic science" that generated my thoughts so I chose to think out loud with the puzzles that I am playing with by deciding to generate another thread and thereby exposing my fuzzy thinking with porous boundaries. Larry From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Sat Sep 5 18:04:08 2015 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 02:04:08 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks 'Last Word' BBC Radio 4 In-Reply-To: <34B4D535-2D82-4710-9A94-1271E7030C32@btinternet.com> References: <433236726.2727430.1441469166559.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <724524860.2727260.1441469497451.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <34B4D535-2D82-4710-9A94-1271E7030C32@btinternet.com> Message-ID: Well, perhaps we can rely upon Peter to relay a sense of the programme. The BBC do a sterling job of providing a stimulus for tired and possibly jaded senses. They are, nevertheless, part of a media industry, and as such their news etc will largely be decorative. If you'd rather not have the BBC (or whatever other news organisation is scurrying to serve up something with a hint of meaningfulness) mediate between your interest and Dr Sacks, then their is a rather obvious alternative -- read his memoir. The guardian review I read today (Will Self, yet again) merely sketched some of the itinerary of the book whilst obliquely touching upon a certain fervent need amongst his fans to be noticed and 'bestowed' attention. This seems to be about the right mark for what a review section of the paper can reasonably provide. With respect to Dr Sacks and "romantic science" I, personally, do not see anything deeply significant coming out of that. Description and attention to a living being is an honestly good thing, however I have not yet picked up a sense from reading Sacks that he applied systemic thought to a socially mediated world (i.e. mind), rather his interest in systems, where it arises, seems to be limited to the tractable, such as localised anatomy. I could be grossly mistaken here, but I do not sense it. Perhaps there are people reading here who could correct me? Best, Huw On 5 September 2015 at 17:27, Shirley Franklin wrote: > Living in Lord Montagu?s area, we mostly know him to have been a rather > unpleasant person! > > On 5 Sep 2015, at 17:11, peter jones wrote: > > > > Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, Joy Beverley, Oliver Sacks, Annette > Worsley-Taylor, Last Word - BBC Radio 4 > > > > | | > > | | | | | | | | > > | Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, Joy Beverley, Oliver Sacks, An...Matthew > Bannister talks about a peer, a singer, a neurologist and a fashion > promoter. | > > | | > > | View on www.bbc.co.uk | Preview by Yahoo | > > | | > > | | > > > > > >> From 15:25... > > > > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Sep 6 01:26:58 2015 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 17:26:58 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Objective and Subjective ZPDs Message-ID: Martin, Andy, Mike...and Others: I've been trying to make sense out of Seth Chaiklin's distinction between the "objective" ZPD and the subjective one. He's obviously got in mind exactly the material we are now translating: Vygotsky's attempt to render the ZPD as a "next zone of development", where the next zone of development is either a) given by the social situation of development (and therefore more or less the same for a whole age group of children). b) given by the "ripening functions" in the lines of development (and therefore different for every individual child). So here's what I've got in chart form. As you'll see, it's very different from the chart that Andy had in his 2009 article, and also somewhat different from the very elegant formulations that Martin had (which to my chagrin I can't remember very well). I've added a column of linguistic indicators taken from Halliday's 2002 volume on early childhood language, because I have to be able to apply all this to data some day very soon..... This is a very sketchy schematicky sort of preliminary draft, and criticisms, objections, imprecations, and even just gutteral mutterings would be most welcome. David Kellogg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Master Chart.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 18391 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150906/4644c314/attachment.bin From ablunden@mira.net Sun Sep 6 02:56:40 2015 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2015 19:56:40 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Objective and Subjective ZPDs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55EC0DD8.2060005@mira.net> David, do you have a PDF of an article which explains this double-barrelled concept? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 6/09/2015 6:26 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Martin, Andy, Mike...and Others: > > I've been trying to make sense out of Seth Chaiklin's distinction between > the "objective" ZPD and the subjective one. He's obviously got in mind > exactly the material we are now translating: Vygotsky's attempt to render > the ZPD as a "next zone of development", where the next zone of development > is either > > a) given by the social situation of development (and therefore more or less > the same for a whole age group of children). > > b) given by the "ripening functions" in the lines of development (and > therefore different for every individual child). > > So here's what I've got in chart form. As you'll see, it's very different > from the chart that Andy had in his 2009 article, and also somewhat > different from the very elegant formulations that Martin had (which to my > chagrin I can't remember very well). > > I've added a column of linguistic indicators taken from Halliday's 2002 > volume on early childhood language, because I have to be able to apply all > this to data some day very soon..... > > This is a very sketchy schematicky sort of preliminary draft, and > criticisms, objections, imprecations, and even just gutteral mutterings > would be most welcome. > > David Kellogg From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Sep 6 04:44:28 2015 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 20:44:28 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Objective and Subjective ZPDs In-Reply-To: <55EC0DD8.2060005@mira.net> References: <55EC0DD8.2060005@mira.net> Message-ID: Sure, Andy. I think there's a copy on the lchc discussions site. But here's a pdf of an early draft from Gordon Wells' course pack. David Kellogg On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > David, do you have a PDF of an article which explains this > double-barrelled concept? > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 6/09/2015 6:26 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > >> Martin, Andy, Mike...and Others: >> >> I've been trying to make sense out of Seth Chaiklin's distinction between >> the "objective" ZPD and the subjective one. He's obviously got in mind >> exactly the material we are now translating: Vygotsky's attempt to render >> the ZPD as a "next zone of development", where the next zone of >> development >> is either >> >> a) given by the social situation of development (and therefore more or >> less >> the same for a whole age group of children). >> >> b) given by the "ripening functions" in the lines of development (and >> therefore different for every individual child). >> >> So here's what I've got in chart form. As you'll see, it's very different >> from the chart that Andy had in his 2009 article, and also somewhat >> different from the very elegant formulations that Martin had (which to my >> chagrin I can't remember very well). >> >> I've added a column of linguistic indicators taken from Halliday's 2002 >> volume on early childhood language, because I have to be able to apply all >> this to data some day very soon..... >> >> This is a very sketchy schematicky sort of preliminary draft, and >> criticisms, objections, imprecations, and even just gutteral mutterings >> would be most welcome. >> >> David Kellogg >> > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: chaiklin.zpd.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 100051 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150906/748d10e4/attachment.pdf From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Sun Sep 6 07:02:49 2015 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 14:02:49 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <55EB8AB6.80901@mira.net> References: <55EB8AB6.80901@mira.net> Message-ID: <1268359297.3044017.1441548169158.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> ???? Andy ,? I think you agree this be our last trial both for reasons of participation rules and the coming in of new threads . I said I don't know how the matrix and the Johari Window work . I came in when Peter gave his figure . I was partially known to that kind of matter . I resorted to Davydov's and Ilyenko's writings . I said I believed for some #unknown , now well-known reason , the vertical axis should be reversed Because all three categories before "true concept" somehow are defective . And you know it's just true scientific concepts which are , to the extent that and as long as they are workable in life , absolute .? Now forgive me if I have to read your text in parts (below) : ? From: Andy Blunden To: "?eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Sunday, 6 September 2015, 5:07:10 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science Haydi, you ask is it true that "All true concepts are both concrete and universal"? Vygotsky uses the expression "true concept" in a quite specific sense, namely a concept as it is first acquired purely through instruction. "Instruction" means in some institution. [[Acquisition of true concepts is not a matter of "where" , is a matter of how . Read about this please on Ilyenko . Davydov's reason for the specific type of teaching and generalization he suggests is that with discrete items learners even at post-puberty do not acquire logical-theoretical conceptions appropriately . And now you say what they get at school is a "concept" . Could we as academics exactly and precisely enumerate items of "furniture" . Because what we got was a table is something you get around for dinner , has four legs , etc. In a house , our learner groups according to the appearances : tables , chairs , sofas ; rugs , curtains , blankets , etc. so on so forth . Then , when is the time to get the concept of furniture ? and as with double stimulation , how can they find the commonalities between different items of "furniture" ? having a seat , getting-around-ness , succeptibility of being laid down , legged-ness? house-ware-ness , fetchablity , fixability ? That's why true workable concepts are absolute , concrete , and universal because they need deeper and deeper thinking and deeper and deeper analyses ?and deeper and deeper trials .]] ?? In this case a "true concept" is not concrete, it is abstract. A "true concept" becomes concrete over time, through experiences, but at first it is abstract. Because it is acquired from an institution a "true concept" is universal, that is to say, it is part of an entire social formation. [[Please agree in this case we don't yet have a 'true concept" ; You're a scholar . please see what Davydov has to say about "notions" and "concepts" . And what between conceptions and concepts , maybe in Davydov . And did Vygotsky (PROCESSES of concept formation) say or did I say true concepts are there in that box . go take it ? At first , it may not be a concept altogether . A.A.Leontiev and Akhutina have worked on "production of speech" Those in the West as well . Motive , inner planning , inner speech , semantics (grammar) , external speech plus many details . Yes , it takes time until "word" comes into being and then word , that is , the cover for meaning stabilizes . But inside , the value or the meaning MOVES . A long way towards the end , the concept . In double stimulation , too , what is carved into the bottom of the blocks remains the same but though they're wooden , they seem to have in them a turbulent sea of rising-falling waves capable of ruining or erecting a world of values . "universality" for me , as I've read , means our whole (concept) in each case within typology has already been purified of non-essentials and non-necessaries , such that we have assigned the particulars in each phenomenon , then have weighed the particulars of that phenomenon against the particulars of other related phenomena to see if we can make a generalization , in the end we reach a 'concept" ; I'ts in that case we can say we can find the particular in the universal and the universal in the particular .]] ? These answers are given in the terms of Vygotsky's "Thinking and Speech," that is to say from the point of view of Psychology, yes, but Cultural Psychology, not positivist psychology. From a Hegelian point of view (not psychology), a true concept is abstract but also concrete, because it is the product and expression of an entire historical development. [[Nice and thanks as always for your co-operation . But I stressed that I'm talking within my assigned limits ; the least I can say is when Post-Hegelians freed the HEAD which had been stuck to the earth , feet were fixed instead and everything got upright .]] That's my answer to your first question. I can't deal with everything in this message. But ... About "fuzzy boundaries." The way you specify this question: 'to blend some "matter" with some "idea" and some idea with some matter' is ridiculed by Vygotsky. To talk of "fuzzy boundaries" implies that there are different kinds of stuff, i.e., existants, but by definition ideas are not existent. [[the idea of the table does not exist#the idea of table is not a BEING]] The way you pose the question reifies ideas. In the psychological sense, ideas are internal, psychological entities and it is absurd to think of blurring a "boundary" between consciousness and matter. No such boundary, fuzzy or firm, exists. I think the only consistent way to make sense of this is to accept that matter and consciousness are *relational* not absolute concepts. What you do, including what you think, is material (objective) from my point of view but from your point of view there is an absolute sharp distinction between your thoughts and your behaviour. [[Dear Andy , if you consider that I denied "fuzzy boundaries" within our context from the beginning , much of your accusations will be removed . You still argued the fuzzy boundaries is the revolutionary act which I now see which I now don't and again I explained that I had taken neither the fuzzy boundaries nor the revolutionary act as such . The beginning refers to when you , taking my "external transformables" as mere objective materials , posed the idea that in recent decades both terms have gone ?further than the dimensions I had depicted . I took it for some idea indicating that ontology penetrates epistemology , vice versa . Then I referred you to my previous message to this one . Now again you say the way YOU specify . I've not specified and I'm not specifying . I attributed that idea to the way YOU had argued . Now you can say directly that I've been mistaken with your point and add that you've even been justified with Vygostky's ridicule . I remember Martin once telling me to be careful with my Farsi translation of the "Crisis" especially to the end when I reach the concepts of ontology and epistemology . The point is so delicate and intriguing , you agree . And now it's my turn to tell you , but ?Andy , "Now you argue ontology could talk even about the being of thoughts and ideas Now you say by definition ideas are not existent" . And if someone (other than me and within this context) tends to prove that there could be a fuzzy boundary between , say , thought and body , why should we not accept his argument ? As you say , the implication goes so far as to say thought is stuffy , consciousness is stuffy , word is stuffy , (established here time and again) and body is stuffy . I also say these are just relational ; they don't have their independent BEING#NOT BEING . But when you say 'stuffy' = existants and add the above are 'materials' , what remains to be discussed ? I see contradictions . The way I posed the question does not reify 'ideas' ; for me ideas and all such things emanate from a BEING in a societal context . I stress this was a thing I attributed to you . I just can apologize for the attribution . YOU say : " In the?psychological sense, ideas are internal, psychological? entities and it is absurd to think of blurring a 'boundary'? between consciousness and matter. I have no doubt that Marx by saying "Behind consciousness is BEING" did by no means mean that these are two different things and there might be a probability of creating something in between them ; in the context , he meant the beginnings or precedence of one over the other (the word and the act and other stories you remember) . And I do remember the "highest property of matter" also . BTW , I've not heard you oppose those who believe in the 'materiaity' of thought and consciousness . How is it , then , that here you , maybe unknowingly , put an equal sign between 'idea' and 'consciousness' ? In a bright shining day , you say by definition , ideas do not exist though here you say of psychological ENTITIES which inevitably then, have to not exist and though whatever man has at his disposal as books , huge encys and dics , on computers , etc. SEEM to be just hallucinations and phantoms . I know where the problem lies . The first test you gave me was with the word 'exist' . Now It's time to replace it with some other term . Terminologically speaking , ideas exist but are not BEINGS . And , No , in my point of view , too , thoughts and behaviours are interactional or dialectical .]] ? ? ? ?? ?And the movement of neurons is not thought, but merely the material substratum of thinking. Thinking is a function of the entire person. If I consider the activity of a person before me, there is both material behaviour (physical movements) and consciousness lying "behind" the behaviour. Thinking and behaving are united in activity, but they are not two different substances which are mixed or blurred, because you can (as an observer) make no distinction between them if you going to speak scientifically. Look at "Thinking and Speech." Does Vygotsky make a distinction between concepts and forms of action? I think not. These are just forms of abstraction from one integral, irreducible substance, activity. Please see if the following satisfies you with ontology and epistemology : There were many exchanges of thought among the audience . But one man's thought shone like a piece of diamond / crystal .? We have transgressed the one / two page/s norm in each post . I personally give my apologies . If you agree , we continue offlist .? Larry ! I'm indebted to you from time immemorial , I really like to talk with you as it were . I'll try !! Thanks !? Haydi Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 6/09/2015 2:06 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > > Dear Andy, > > The reason I came to you was Peg's authority and > personality and brilliance of research . Now again I put > my problem clearly : I have some supposition to the effect > that "All true concepts are both concrete and universal" > according to my previous explanation . If I'm mistaken , > someone might be kind to justify the point . This is where > I was led to during discussions . > > > > P.S. What I wrote you as Marx's evaluation of Feuerbach > not being "revolutionary" is at hand but I have some more > important thing to say as to clarify what I meant by > "fuzzy boundaries" . > > > I said of ontology as tending towards "external > transformable/s [entities] . And you said of plurality of > both terms . Now I give more explanation . > > > By that , I wouldn't have meant just rocks and stones . In > this regard , in my personal correspondence I referred you > to the wrestling and involvement and therefrom to "man and > his world" . That is , man , the world , actions , > interactions , processes , relations , relationships , so > on so forth . That is , to the extent where man still > remains "man" and "his world" remains "his world" . As I > understand it , this is the dimension and limits of > "ontology" . > > > But you're talking in a way that one might figure out that > it's possible to blend some "matter" with some "idea" and > some idea with some matter . This is what I meant by > "fuzzy bordering" . > > > If , as you say , the being of thought (spatially > temporally) is something and the knowing of thought > something else , the former ontological , the latter , > epistemological , then what are the neuronal processes > taking place in the brain ? Wouldn't you agree that this > latter case might be closer to "ontology" . I say we are > either dealing with thought or with the thinking man ; > that is they related but distinctive . And it's when we > are dealing with the thinking man as "social being" that > the problem of being "revolutionary" or > "non-revolutionary" or "counter-revolutionary" occurs . > > > And it's O.K. for us to think over the well-known saying > that "behind consciousness is BEING" . Does not this BEING > , first of all , mean the Being who is born , who grows , > lives , works , uses tools , acts , interacts , wrestles > with , involves , gets engaged , enters processes , joins > , communicates , socializes , fails , succeeds , dies , etc. ? > > > Please first go to the first parag in full . Others are > deletable . > > > Best > Haydi > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Andy Blunden > *To:* ?Haydi Zulfei? ? ; > "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Sent:* Saturday, 5 September 2015, 16:47:41 > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > But Haydi, those "fuzzy foggy boundaries" are > revolutionary practice! Now you see it now you don't! > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > On 5/09/2015 9:15 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: >> Andy, >> >> Thanks for the explanation ! >> >> A large part of my personal debate was about the theses , >> the first one in particular and you admitted that you'd >> seen nothing richer than them . Then , it was not a >> matter of recent decades , revisions , innovations or the >> other Marx or Marxes .? To put it simply even today : The >> table exists and the idea of the table exists . Does >> creating fuzzy foggy boundaries in between help resolve >> our problems ? Now , that's not our main point of reference . >> >> >> What you're talking about was my Post-Script , an >> addendum to a major point . Shortly , within our bounds >> (Vygotsky Marxist School of the Time and beyond) , could >> we say : "All true concepts are both universal and >> concrete" ? >> >> I would not provide support for this because , I think , >> David Kellog or Mike is able to locate if such a saying >> exists within Vygotsky's Collected works or some other >> Vygotskian's . My mind triggers blazingly though it's too >> old . >> >> Larry ! I'll read your post again and try to provide an >> answer . Many thanks ! >> >> Best >> >> Haydi >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Andy Blunden >> >> *To:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> >> *Sent:* Saturday, 5 September 2015, 4:58:38 >> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >> >> Haydi, on the question of ontology and epistemology ... >> Ontology is the study of being. That does not mean that it >> is concerned only with independently existing entities. It >> is the study of what forms of being there are, such as >> "thoughts". In recent decades this has come to mean a person >> or a culture's belief in the array of different entities >> that may be talked of, e.g. gods, classes or individuals, so >> it is an aspect of cultural difference. >> Epistemology is the study of knowing, in particular the >> limits and validity of knowledge. It is not necessarily a >> study of reflection. In recent decades it has comes to mean >> a person or a culture's beliefs about the legitimate sources >> of knowledge, e.g. priests, books or experience, etc. >> It was Hegel who first proposed that these sciences were >> bankrupt and should be transcended, because every social >> formation had its own integral "epistemology" and "ontology" >> and there was no final answer to the question these sciences >> proposed, so Hegel's view leads us to the modern way of >> talking about epistemologies and ontologies in the plural >> and aspects of a way of thinking and acting in the world. >> Hegel's Ontology is the first Book of the Logic, and I can >> see a sense in which you could say that the Second Book is >> about epistemology, but I don't think this is accurate. >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> >> >> >> >> On 5/09/2015 7:08 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: >> > P.S. Many a time I've made efforts , asked others , to >> differentiate between ONTOLOGY and EPISTEMOLOGY ; yet >> I've stayed on the same spot . First thesis of Feuerbach >> tells us if it's the case that we imagine / conceive the >> objects there to themselves without any wrestling on our >> part to get involved with them , then science / genuine >> materialism would not present any meaning to us . All >> things arise from the wrestling and the involvement . On >> this point , too , in either case , our work and thinking >> power are involved except that with ontology , we try to >> conceive things as existent and trace them as external >> transformables in themselves while with epistemology we >> deal with the pertaining ideas as reflexions . Then , in >> the natural and physical sciences , by concrete we mean >> "of matter" , corporeal , while in philosophy and >> gnoseology which is the province of the second of our >> division , knowledge , concrete , of necessity , would >> mean conceptual , the highest and most valued categorial >> philosophical term . >> > In what ways am I completely mistaken ? >> > Best >> > Haydi >> > >> > >> >> > > > From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Sun Sep 6 07:02:49 2015 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 14:02:49 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <55EB8AB6.80901@mira.net> References: <55EB8AB6.80901@mira.net> Message-ID: <1268359297.3044017.1441548169158.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> ???? Andy ,? I think you agree this be our last trial both for reasons of participation rules and the coming in of new threads . I said I don't know how the matrix and the Johari Window work . I came in when Peter gave his figure . I was partially known to that kind of matter . I resorted to Davydov's and Ilyenko's writings . I said I believed for some #unknown , now well-known reason , the vertical axis should be reversed Because all three categories before "true concept" somehow are defective . And you know it's just true scientific concepts which are , to the extent that and as long as they are workable in life , absolute .? Now forgive me if I have to read your text in parts (below) : ? From: Andy Blunden To: "?eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Sunday, 6 September 2015, 5:07:10 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science Haydi, you ask is it true that "All true concepts are both concrete and universal"? Vygotsky uses the expression "true concept" in a quite specific sense, namely a concept as it is first acquired purely through instruction. "Instruction" means in some institution. [[Acquisition of true concepts is not a matter of "where" , is a matter of how . Read about this please on Ilyenko . Davydov's reason for the specific type of teaching and generalization he suggests is that with discrete items learners even at post-puberty do not acquire logical-theoretical conceptions appropriately . And now you say what they get at school is a "concept" . Could we as academics exactly and precisely enumerate items of "furniture" . Because what we got was a table is something you get around for dinner , has four legs , etc. In a house , our learner groups according to the appearances : tables , chairs , sofas ; rugs , curtains , blankets , etc. so on so forth . Then , when is the time to get the concept of furniture ? and as with double stimulation , how can they find the commonalities between different items of "furniture" ? having a seat , getting-around-ness , succeptibility of being laid down , legged-ness? house-ware-ness , fetchablity , fixability ? That's why true workable concepts are absolute , concrete , and universal because they need deeper and deeper thinking and deeper and deeper analyses ?and deeper and deeper trials .]] ?? In this case a "true concept" is not concrete, it is abstract. A "true concept" becomes concrete over time, through experiences, but at first it is abstract. Because it is acquired from an institution a "true concept" is universal, that is to say, it is part of an entire social formation. [[Please agree in this case we don't yet have a 'true concept" ; You're a scholar . please see what Davydov has to say about "notions" and "concepts" . And what between conceptions and concepts , maybe in Davydov . And did Vygotsky (PROCESSES of concept formation) say or did I say true concepts are there in that box . go take it ? At first , it may not be a concept altogether . A.A.Leontiev and Akhutina have worked on "production of speech" Those in the West as well . Motive , inner planning , inner speech , semantics (grammar) , external speech plus many details . Yes , it takes time until "word" comes into being and then word , that is , the cover for meaning stabilizes . But inside , the value or the meaning MOVES . A long way towards the end , the concept . In double stimulation , too , what is carved into the bottom of the blocks remains the same but though they're wooden , they seem to have in them a turbulent sea of rising-falling waves capable of ruining or erecting a world of values . "universality" for me , as I've read , means our whole (concept) in each case within typology has already been purified of non-essentials and non-necessaries , such that we have assigned the particulars in each phenomenon , then have weighed the particulars of that phenomenon against the particulars of other related phenomena to see if we can make a generalization , in the end we reach a 'concept" ; I'ts in that case we can say we can find the particular in the universal and the universal in the particular .]] ? These answers are given in the terms of Vygotsky's "Thinking and Speech," that is to say from the point of view of Psychology, yes, but Cultural Psychology, not positivist psychology. From a Hegelian point of view (not psychology), a true concept is abstract but also concrete, because it is the product and expression of an entire historical development. [[Nice and thanks as always for your co-operation . But I stressed that I'm talking within my assigned limits ; the least I can say is when Post-Hegelians freed the HEAD which had been stuck to the earth , feet were fixed instead and everything got upright .]] That's my answer to your first question. I can't deal with everything in this message. But ... About "fuzzy boundaries." The way you specify this question: 'to blend some "matter" with some "idea" and some idea with some matter' is ridiculed by Vygotsky. To talk of "fuzzy boundaries" implies that there are different kinds of stuff, i.e., existants, but by definition ideas are not existent. [[the idea of the table does not exist#the idea of table is not a BEING]] The way you pose the question reifies ideas. In the psychological sense, ideas are internal, psychological entities and it is absurd to think of blurring a "boundary" between consciousness and matter. No such boundary, fuzzy or firm, exists. I think the only consistent way to make sense of this is to accept that matter and consciousness are *relational* not absolute concepts. What you do, including what you think, is material (objective) from my point of view but from your point of view there is an absolute sharp distinction between your thoughts and your behaviour. [[Dear Andy , if you consider that I denied "fuzzy boundaries" within our context from the beginning , much of your accusations will be removed . You still argued the fuzzy boundaries is the revolutionary act which I now see which I now don't and again I explained that I had taken neither the fuzzy boundaries nor the revolutionary act as such . The beginning refers to when you , taking my "external transformables" as mere objective materials , posed the idea that in recent decades both terms have gone ?further than the dimensions I had depicted . I took it for some idea indicating that ontology penetrates epistemology , vice versa . Then I referred you to my previous message to this one . Now again you say the way YOU specify . I've not specified and I'm not specifying . I attributed that idea to the way YOU had argued . Now you can say directly that I've been mistaken with your point and add that you've even been justified with Vygostky's ridicule . I remember Martin once telling me to be careful with my Farsi translation of the "Crisis" especially to the end when I reach the concepts of ontology and epistemology . The point is so delicate and intriguing , you agree . And now it's my turn to tell you , but ?Andy , "Now you argue ontology could talk even about the being of thoughts and ideas Now you say by definition ideas are not existent" . And if someone (other than me and within this context) tends to prove that there could be a fuzzy boundary between , say , thought and body , why should we not accept his argument ? As you say , the implication goes so far as to say thought is stuffy , consciousness is stuffy , word is stuffy , (established here time and again) and body is stuffy . I also say these are just relational ; they don't have their independent BEING#NOT BEING . But when you say 'stuffy' = existants and add the above are 'materials' , what remains to be discussed ? I see contradictions . The way I posed the question does not reify 'ideas' ; for me ideas and all such things emanate from a BEING in a societal context . I stress this was a thing I attributed to you . I just can apologize for the attribution . YOU say : " In the?psychological sense, ideas are internal, psychological? entities and it is absurd to think of blurring a 'boundary'? between consciousness and matter. I have no doubt that Marx by saying "Behind consciousness is BEING" did by no means mean that these are two different things and there might be a probability of creating something in between them ; in the context , he meant the beginnings or precedence of one over the other (the word and the act and other stories you remember) . And I do remember the "highest property of matter" also . BTW , I've not heard you oppose those who believe in the 'materiaity' of thought and consciousness . How is it , then , that here you , maybe unknowingly , put an equal sign between 'idea' and 'consciousness' ? In a bright shining day , you say by definition , ideas do not exist though here you say of psychological ENTITIES which inevitably then, have to not exist and though whatever man has at his disposal as books , huge encys and dics , on computers , etc. SEEM to be just hallucinations and phantoms . I know where the problem lies . The first test you gave me was with the word 'exist' . Now It's time to replace it with some other term . Terminologically speaking , ideas exist but are not BEINGS . And , No , in my point of view , too , thoughts and behaviours are interactional or dialectical .]] ? ? ? ?? ?And the movement of neurons is not thought, but merely the material substratum of thinking. Thinking is a function of the entire person. If I consider the activity of a person before me, there is both material behaviour (physical movements) and consciousness lying "behind" the behaviour. Thinking and behaving are united in activity, but they are not two different substances which are mixed or blurred, because you can (as an observer) make no distinction between them if you going to speak scientifically. Look at "Thinking and Speech." Does Vygotsky make a distinction between concepts and forms of action? I think not. These are just forms of abstraction from one integral, irreducible substance, activity. Please see if the following satisfies you with ontology and epistemology : There were many exchanges of thought among the audience . But one man's thought shone like a piece of diamond / crystal .? We have transgressed the one / two page/s norm in each post . I personally give my apologies . If you agree , we continue offlist .? Larry ! I'm indebted to you from time immemorial , I really like to talk with you as it were . I'll try !! Thanks !? Haydi Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 6/09/2015 2:06 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > > Dear Andy, > > The reason I came to you was Peg's authority and > personality and brilliance of research . Now again I put > my problem clearly : I have some supposition to the effect > that "All true concepts are both concrete and universal" > according to my previous explanation . If I'm mistaken , > someone might be kind to justify the point . This is where > I was led to during discussions . > > > > P.S. What I wrote you as Marx's evaluation of Feuerbach > not being "revolutionary" is at hand but I have some more > important thing to say as to clarify what I meant by > "fuzzy boundaries" . > > > I said of ontology as tending towards "external > transformable/s [entities] . And you said of plurality of > both terms . Now I give more explanation . > > > By that , I wouldn't have meant just rocks and stones . In > this regard , in my personal correspondence I referred you > to the wrestling and involvement and therefrom to "man and > his world" . That is , man , the world , actions , > interactions , processes , relations , relationships , so > on so forth . That is , to the extent where man still > remains "man" and "his world" remains "his world" . As I > understand it , this is the dimension and limits of > "ontology" . > > > But you're talking in a way that one might figure out that > it's possible to blend some "matter" with some "idea" and > some idea with some matter . This is what I meant by > "fuzzy bordering" . > > > If , as you say , the being of thought (spatially > temporally) is something and the knowing of thought > something else , the former ontological , the latter , > epistemological , then what are the neuronal processes > taking place in the brain ? Wouldn't you agree that this > latter case might be closer to "ontology" . I say we are > either dealing with thought or with the thinking man ; > that is they related but distinctive . And it's when we > are dealing with the thinking man as "social being" that > the problem of being "revolutionary" or > "non-revolutionary" or "counter-revolutionary" occurs . > > > And it's O.K. for us to think over the well-known saying > that "behind consciousness is BEING" . Does not this BEING > , first of all , mean the Being who is born , who grows , > lives , works , uses tools , acts , interacts , wrestles > with , involves , gets engaged , enters processes , joins > , communicates , socializes , fails , succeeds , dies , etc. ? > > > Please first go to the first parag in full . Others are > deletable . > > > Best > Haydi > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Andy Blunden > *To:* ?Haydi Zulfei? ? ; > "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > *Sent:* Saturday, 5 September 2015, 16:47:41 > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > But Haydi, those "fuzzy foggy boundaries" are > revolutionary practice! Now you see it now you don't! > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > On 5/09/2015 9:15 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: >> Andy, >> >> Thanks for the explanation ! >> >> A large part of my personal debate was about the theses , >> the first one in particular and you admitted that you'd >> seen nothing richer than them . Then , it was not a >> matter of recent decades , revisions , innovations or the >> other Marx or Marxes .? To put it simply even today : The >> table exists and the idea of the table exists . Does >> creating fuzzy foggy boundaries in between help resolve >> our problems ? Now , that's not our main point of reference . >> >> >> What you're talking about was my Post-Script , an >> addendum to a major point . Shortly , within our bounds >> (Vygotsky Marxist School of the Time and beyond) , could >> we say : "All true concepts are both universal and >> concrete" ? >> >> I would not provide support for this because , I think , >> David Kellog or Mike is able to locate if such a saying >> exists within Vygotsky's Collected works or some other >> Vygotskian's . My mind triggers blazingly though it's too >> old . >> >> Larry ! I'll read your post again and try to provide an >> answer . Many thanks ! >> >> Best >> >> Haydi >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Andy Blunden >> >> *To:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >> >> *Sent:* Saturday, 5 September 2015, 4:58:38 >> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science >> >> Haydi, on the question of ontology and epistemology ... >> Ontology is the study of being. That does not mean that it >> is concerned only with independently existing entities. It >> is the study of what forms of being there are, such as >> "thoughts". In recent decades this has come to mean a person >> or a culture's belief in the array of different entities >> that may be talked of, e.g. gods, classes or individuals, so >> it is an aspect of cultural difference. >> Epistemology is the study of knowing, in particular the >> limits and validity of knowledge. It is not necessarily a >> study of reflection. In recent decades it has comes to mean >> a person or a culture's beliefs about the legitimate sources >> of knowledge, e.g. priests, books or experience, etc. >> It was Hegel who first proposed that these sciences were >> bankrupt and should be transcended, because every social >> formation had its own integral "epistemology" and "ontology" >> and there was no final answer to the question these sciences >> proposed, so Hegel's view leads us to the modern way of >> talking about epistemologies and ontologies in the plural >> and aspects of a way of thinking and acting in the world. >> Hegel's Ontology is the first Book of the Logic, and I can >> see a sense in which you could say that the Second Book is >> about epistemology, but I don't think this is accurate. >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> >> >> >> >> On 5/09/2015 7:08 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: >> > P.S. Many a time I've made efforts , asked others , to >> differentiate between ONTOLOGY and EPISTEMOLOGY ; yet >> I've stayed on the same spot . First thesis of Feuerbach >> tells us if it's the case that we imagine / conceive the >> objects there to themselves without any wrestling on our >> part to get involved with them , then science / genuine >> materialism would not present any meaning to us . All >> things arise from the wrestling and the involvement . On >> this point , too , in either case , our work and thinking >> power are involved except that with ontology , we try to >> conceive things as existent and trace them as external >> transformables in themselves while with epistemology we >> deal with the pertaining ideas as reflexions . Then , in >> the natural and physical sciences , by concrete we mean >> "of matter" , corporeal , while in philosophy and >> gnoseology which is the province of the second of our >> division , knowledge , concrete , of necessity , would >> mean conceptual , the highest and most valued categorial >> philosophical term . >> > In what ways am I completely mistaken ? >> > Best >> > Haydi >> > >> > >> >> > > > From ablunden@mira.net Sun Sep 6 07:22:39 2015 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2015 00:22:39 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <1268359297.3044017.1441548169158.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <55EB8AB6.80901@mira.net> <1268359297.3044017.1441548169158.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <55EC4C2F.80806@mira.net> Agreed, Haydi. We can talk off-line if you want, but the matrix is not my thing. Someone else will have to explain it. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 7/09/2015 12:02 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > > Andy , > > I think you agree this be our last trial both for reasons > of participation rules and the coming in of new threads . > > I said I don't know how the matrix and the Johari Window > work . I came in when Peter gave his figure . I was > partially known to that kind of matter . I resorted to > Davydov's and Ilyenko's writings . I said I believed for > some #unknown , now well-known reason , the vertical axis > should be reversed Because all three categories before > "true concept" somehow are defective . And you know it's > just true scientific concepts which are , to the extent > that and as long as they are workable in life , absolute . > > > Now forgive me if I have to read your text in parts (below) : > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Andy Blunden > *To:* "?eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > *Sent:* Sunday, 6 September 2015, 5:07:10 > *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > Haydi, you ask is it true that "All true concepts are both > concrete and universal"? > Vygotsky uses the expression "true concept" in a quite > specific sense, namely a concept as it is first acquired > purely through instruction. "Instruction" means in some > institution. > > [[Acquisition of true concepts is not a matter of "where" > , is a matter of how . Read about this please on Ilyenko . > Davydov's reason for the specific type of teaching and > generalization he suggests is that with discrete items > learners even at post-puberty do not acquire > logical-theoretical conceptions appropriately . And now > you say what they get at school is a "concept" . Could we > as academics exactly and precisely enumerate items of > "furniture" . Because what we got was a table is something > you get around for dinner , has four legs , etc. In a > house , our learner groups according to the appearances : > tables , chairs , sofas ; rugs , curtains , blankets , > etc. so on so forth . Then , when is the time to get the > concept of furniture ? and as with double stimulation , > how can they find the commonalities between different > items of "furniture" ? having a seat , getting-around-ness > , succeptibility of being laid down , legged-ness? > house-ware-ness , fetchablity , fixability ? That's why > true workable concepts are absolute , concrete , and > universal because they need deeper and deeper thinking and > deeper and deeper analyses and deeper and deeper trials .]] > > In this case a "true concept" is not concrete, it is > abstract. A "true concept" becomes concrete over time, > through experiences, but at first it is abstract. > Because it is acquired from an institution a "true concept" > is universal, that is to say, it is part of an entire social > formation. > > [[Please agree in this case we don't yet have a 'true > concept" ; You're a scholar . please see what Davydov has > to say about "notions" and "concepts" . And what between > conceptions and concepts , maybe in Davydov . And did > Vygotsky (PROCESSES of concept formation) say or did I say > true concepts are there in that box . go take it ? At > first , it may not be a concept altogether . A.A.Leontiev > and Akhutina have worked on "production of speech" Those > in the West as well . Motive , inner planning , inner > speech , semantics (grammar) , external speech plus many > details . Yes , it takes time until "word" comes into > being and then word , that is , the cover for meaning > stabilizes . But inside , the value or the meaning MOVES . > A long way towards the end , the concept . In double > stimulation , too , what is carved into the bottom of the > blocks remains the same but though they're wooden , they > seem to have in them a turbulent sea of rising-falling > waves capable of ruining or erecting a world of values . > "universality" for me , as I've read , means our whole > (concept) in each case within typology has already been > purified of non-essentials and non-necessaries , such that > we have assigned the particulars in each phenomenon , then > have weighed the particulars of that phenomenon against > the particulars of other related phenomena to see if we > can make a generalization , in the end we reach a > 'concept" ; I'ts in that case we can say we can find the > particular in the universal and the universal in the > particular .]] > > These answers are given in the terms of Vygotsky's "Thinking > and Speech," that is to say from the point of view of > Psychology, yes, but Cultural Psychology, not positivist > psychology. > > > > From a Hegelian point of view (not psychology), a true > concept is abstract but also concrete, because it is the > product and expression of an entire historical development. > > [[Nice and thanks as always for your co-operation . But I > stressed that I'm talking within my assigned limits ; the > least I can say is when Post-Hegelians freed the HEAD > which had been stuck to the earth , feet were fixed > instead and everything got upright .]] > > That's my answer to your first question. I can't deal with > everything in this message. But ... > > > > About "fuzzy boundaries." The way you specify this question: > 'to blend some "matter" with some "idea" and some idea with > some matter' is ridiculed by Vygotsky. To talk of "fuzzy > boundaries" implies that there are different kinds of stuff, > i.e., existants, but by definition ideas are not existent. > [[the idea of the table does not exist#the idea of table > is not a BEING]] > The way you pose the question reifies ideas. In the > psychological sense, ideas are internal, psychological > entities and it is absurd to think of blurring a "boundary" > between consciousness and matter. No such boundary, fuzzy or > firm, exists. I think the only consistent way to make sense > of this is to accept that matter and consciousness are > *relational* not absolute concepts. What you do, including > what you think, is material (objective) from my point of > view but from your point of view there is an absolute sharp > distinction between your thoughts and your behaviour. > > [[Dear Andy , if you consider that I denied "fuzzy > boundaries" within our context from the beginning , much > of your accusations will be removed . You still argued the > fuzzy boundaries is the revolutionary act which I now see > which I now don't and again I explained that I had taken > neither the fuzzy boundaries nor the revolutionary act as > such . The beginning refers to when you , taking my > "external transformables" as mere objective materials , > posed the idea that in recent decades both terms have gone > further than the dimensions I had depicted . I took it > for some idea indicating that ontology penetrates > epistemology , vice versa . Then I referred you to my > previous message to this one . Now again you say the way > YOU specify . I've not specified and I'm not specifying . > I attributed that idea to the way YOU had argued . Now you > can say directly that I've been mistaken with your point > and add that you've even been justified with Vygostky's > ridicule . I remember Martin once telling me to be careful > with my Farsi translation of the "Crisis" especially to > the end when I reach the concepts of ontology and > epistemology . The point is so delicate and intriguing , > you agree . And now it's my turn to tell you , but Andy , > "Now you argue ontology could talk even about the being of > thoughts and ideas Now you say by definition ideas are not > existent" . And if someone (other than me and within this > context) tends to prove that there could be a fuzzy > boundary between , say , thought and body , why should we > not accept his argument ? As you say , the implication > goes so far as to say thought is stuffy , consciousness is > stuffy , word is stuffy , (established here time and > again) and body is stuffy . I also say these are just > relational ; they don't have their independent BEING#NOT > BEING . But when you say 'stuffy' = existants and add the > above are 'materials' , what remains to be discussed ? I > see contradictions . The way I posed the question does not > reify 'ideas' ; for me ideas and all such things emanate > from a BEING in a societal context . I stress this was a > thing I attributed to you . I just can apologize for the > attribution . YOU say : " In the > psychological sense, ideas are internal, psychological > entities and it is absurd to think of blurring a 'boundary' > between consciousness and matter. I have no doubt that > Marx by saying "Behind consciousness is BEING" did by no > means mean that these are two different things and there > might be a probability of creating something in between > them ; in the context , he meant the beginnings or > precedence of one over the other (the word and the act and > other stories you remember) . And I do remember the > "highest property of matter" also . BTW , I've not heard > you oppose those who believe in the 'materiaity' of > thought and consciousness . How is it , then , that here > you , maybe unknowingly , put an equal sign between 'idea' > and 'consciousness' ? In a bright shining day , you say by > definition , ideas do not exist though here you say of > psychological ENTITIES which inevitably then, have to not > exist and though whatever man has at his disposal as books > , huge encys and dics , on computers , etc. SEEM to be > just hallucinations and phantoms . I know where the > problem lies . The first test you gave me was with the > word 'exist' . Now It's time to replace it with some other > term . Terminologically speaking , ideas exist but are not > BEINGS . And , No , in my point of view , too , thoughts > and behaviours are interactional or dialectical .]] > > And > the movement of neurons is not thought, but merely the > material substratum of thinking. Thinking is a function of > the entire person. If I consider the activity of a person > before me, there is both material behaviour (physical > movements) and consciousness lying "behind" the behaviour. > Thinking and behaving are united in activity, but they are > not two different substances which are mixed or blurred, > because you can (as an observer) make no distinction between > them if you going to speak scientifically. Look at "Thinking > and Speech." Does Vygotsky make a distinction between > concepts and forms of action? I think not. These are just > forms of abstraction from one integral, irreducible > substance, activity. > > > Please see if the following satisfies you with ontology > and epistemology : > > There were many exchanges of thought among the audience . > > But one man's thought shone like a piece of diamond / > crystal . > > > We have transgressed the one / two page/s norm in each > post . I personally give my apologies . If you agree , we > continue offlist . > > > Larry ! I'm indebted to you from time immemorial , I > really like to talk with you as it were . I'll try !! > Thanks ! > > Haydi > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > On 6/09/2015 2:06 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > > > > Dear Andy, > > > > The reason I came to you was Peg's authority and > > personality and brilliance of research . Now again I put > > my problem clearly : I have some supposition to the effect > > that "All true concepts are both concrete and universal" > > according to my previous explanation . If I'm mistaken , > > someone might be kind to justify the point . This is where > > I was led to during discussions . > > > > > > > > P.S. What I wrote you as Marx's evaluation of Feuerbach > > not being "revolutionary" is at hand but I have some more > > important thing to say as to clarify what I meant by > > "fuzzy boundaries" . > > > > > > I said of ontology as tending towards "external > > transformable/s [entities] . And you said of plurality of > > both terms . Now I give more explanation . > > > > > > By that , I wouldn't have meant just rocks and stones . In > > this regard , in my personal correspondence I referred you > > to the wrestling and involvement and therefrom to "man and > > his world" . That is , man , the world , actions , > > interactions , processes , relations , relationships , so > > on so forth . That is , to the extent where man still > > remains "man" and "his world" remains "his world" . As I > > understand it , this is the dimension and limits of > > "ontology" . > > > > > > But you're talking in a way that one might figure out that > > it's possible to blend some "matter" with some "idea" and > > some idea with some matter . This is what I meant by > > "fuzzy bordering" . > > > > > > If , as you say , the being of thought (spatially > > temporally) is something and the knowing of thought > > something else , the former ontological , the latter , > > epistemological , then what are the neuronal processes > > taking place in the brain ? Wouldn't you agree that this > > latter case might be closer to "ontology" . I say we are > > either dealing with thought or with the thinking man ; > > that is they related but distinctive . And it's when we > > are dealing with the thinking man as "social being" that > > the problem of being "revolutionary" or > > "non-revolutionary" or "counter-revolutionary" occurs . > > > > > > And it's O.K. for us to think over the well-known saying > > that "behind consciousness is BEING" . Does not this BEING > > , first of all , mean the Being who is born , who grows , > > lives , works , uses tools , acts , interacts , wrestles > > with , involves , gets engaged , enters processes , joins > > , communicates , socializes , fails , succeeds , dies , > etc. ? > > > > > > Please first go to the first parag in full . Others are > > deletable . > > > > > > Best > > Haydi > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Andy Blunden > > > *To:* ?Haydi Zulfei? ? >; > > "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > > *Sent:* Saturday, 5 September 2015, 16:47:41 > > *Subject:* Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > But Haydi, those "fuzzy foggy boundaries" are > > revolutionary practice! Now you see it now you don't! > > > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > > > > > On 5/09/2015 9:15 PM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > >> Andy, > >> > >> Thanks for the explanation ! > >> > >> A large part of my personal debate was about the theses , > >> the first one in particular and you admitted that you'd > >> seen nothing richer than them . Then , it was not a > >> matter of recent decades , revisions , innovations or the > >> other Marx or Marxes . To put it simply even today : The > >> table exists and the idea of the table exists . Does > >> creating fuzzy foggy boundaries in between help resolve > >> our problems ? Now , that's not our main point of > reference . > >> > >> > >> What you're talking about was my Post-Script , an > >> addendum to a major point . Shortly , within our bounds > >> (Vygotsky Marxist School of the Time and beyond) , could > >> we say : "All true concepts are both universal and > >> concrete" ? > >> > >> I would not provide support for this because , I think , > >> David Kellog or Mike is able to locate if such a saying > >> exists within Vygotsky's Collected works or some other > >> Vygotskian's . My mind triggers blazingly though it's too > >> old . > >> > >> Larry ! I'll read your post again and try to provide an > >> answer . Many thanks ! > >> > >> Best > >> > >> Haydi > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> *From:* Andy Blunden > > >> > > >> *To:* "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > >> > > > > >> *Sent:* Saturday, 5 September 2015, 4:58:38 > >> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > >> > >> Haydi, on the question of ontology and epistemology ... > >> Ontology is the study of being. That does not mean that it > >> is concerned only with independently existing entities. It > >> is the study of what forms of being there are, such as > >> "thoughts". In recent decades this has come to mean a > person > >> or a culture's belief in the array of different entities > >> that may be talked of, e.g. gods, classes or > individuals, so > >> it is an aspect of cultural difference. > >> Epistemology is the study of knowing, in particular the > >> limits and validity of knowledge. It is not necessarily a > >> study of reflection. In recent decades it has comes to mean > >> a person or a culture's beliefs about the legitimate > sources > >> of knowledge, e.g. priests, books or experience, etc. > >> It was Hegel who first proposed that these sciences were > >> bankrupt and should be transcended, because every social > >> formation had its own integral "epistemology" and > "ontology" > >> and there was no final answer to the question these > sciences > >> proposed, so Hegel's view leads us to the modern way of > >> talking about epistemologies and ontologies in the plural > >> and aspects of a way of thinking and acting in the world. > >> Hegel's Ontology is the first Book of the Logic, and I can > >> see a sense in which you could say that the Second Book is > >> about epistemology, but I don't think this is accurate. > >> > >> Andy > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> *Andy Blunden* > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> On 5/09/2015 7:08 AM, ?Haydi Zulfei? ? wrote: > >> > P.S. Many a time I've made efforts , asked others , to > >> differentiate between ONTOLOGY and EPISTEMOLOGY ; yet > >> I've stayed on the same spot . First thesis of Feuerbach > >> tells us if it's the case that we imagine / conceive the > >> objects there to themselves without any wrestling on our > >> part to get involved with them , then science / genuine > >> materialism would not present any meaning to us . All > >> things arise from the wrestling and the involvement . On > >> this point , too , in either case , our work and thinking > >> power are involved except that with ontology , we try to > >> conceive things as existent and trace them as external > >> transformables in themselves while with epistemology we > >> deal with the pertaining ideas as reflexions . Then , in > >> the natural and physical sciences , by concrete we mean > >> "of matter" , corporeal , while in philosophy and > >> gnoseology which is the province of the second of our > >> division , knowledge , concrete , of necessity , would > >> mean conceptual , the highest and most valued categorial > >> philosophical term . > >> > In what ways am I completely mistaken ? > >> > Best > >> > Haydi > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > From pfarruggio@utpa.edu Sun Sep 6 11:53:23 2015 From: pfarruggio@utpa.edu (Peter Farruggio) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 18:53:23 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Quoting Oliver Sacks on grading Message-ID: Quoting Oliver Sacks http://walkingtoschool.blogspot.com/ I'm nearly finished with the Oliver Sacks autobiography On the Move. With an interest in writing and the brain, Sacks has been a great companion over the years. In the book he describes both his medical life and his life of writing. I will miss him when he's gone. His life is nearing its end, as he has publicly announced and chronicled in the New York Times Op-Ed section here, here, and most recently here. He reveals all in this life story which was written prior to learning he has terminal cancer. Very much fun to read. Of course, ever alert to teaching and learning I dog-eared the following page where he describes working with neurology interns: At one point, the neurology department asked me to test and grade all my students. I submitted the requisite form, giving all of them A's. My chairman was indignant. "How can they all be A's?" he asked. "Is this some kind of a joke?" I said, no it wasn't a joke, but that the more I got to know each student, the more he seemed to me distinctive. My A was not some attempt to affirm a spurious equality but rather an acknowledgment of the uniqueness of each student. I felt that a student could not be reduced to a number or a test, any more that a patient could. How could I judge students without seeing them in a variety of situations, how they stood on the ungradable qualities of empathy, concern, responsibility, judgment? Eventually, I was no longer asked to grade my students. Posted by MARY TEDROW at 11:33 AM > From mcole@ucsd.edu Sun Sep 6 12:21:07 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 12:21:07 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Objective and Subjective ZPDs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi David-- I am lousy and figuring out what is objective or subjective about a zoped so I can't help a lot here. I habitually have difficulty with the extension of the term, social situation of development. In particular, I worry about this way of formulating matters: a) given by the social situation of development (and therefore more or less the same for a whole age group of children). Its the "more or less the same" part that drives me bananas. I was just sent the following blog entry which gives you some idea of the sort of issue I am referring to, but the concerns are there in my work for decades, so no surprise. http://www.youthcirculations.com/blog/ Putting that sort of concern aside (after all, its more or less, the influence of the activities that different kids the same age are placed into might not be critical for the phenomenon in question), I don't know what to do with the idea that "lines of development" (locomotion, feeding behaviors,,,,,,,,,,) are the domain of the subjective. And of course, all communicative behaviors are a line (or lines?) of development. Lost at sea. mike On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 1:26 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > Martin, Andy, Mike...and Others: > > I've been trying to make sense out of Seth Chaiklin's distinction between > the "objective" ZPD and the subjective one. He's obviously got in mind > exactly the material we are now translating: Vygotsky's attempt to render > the ZPD as a "next zone of development", where the next zone of development > is either > > a) given by the social situation of development (and therefore more or less > the same for a whole age group of children). > > b) given by the "ripening functions" in the lines of development (and > therefore different for every individual child). > > So here's what I've got in chart form. As you'll see, it's very different > from the chart that Andy had in his 2009 article, and also somewhat > different from the very elegant formulations that Martin had (which to my > chagrin I can't remember very well). > > I've added a column of linguistic indicators taken from Halliday's 2002 > volume on early childhood language, because I have to be able to apply all > this to data some day very soon..... > > This is a very sketchy schematicky sort of preliminary draft, and > criticisms, objections, imprecations, and even just gutteral mutterings > would be most welcome. > > David Kellogg > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From ablunden@mira.net Sun Sep 6 21:19:03 2015 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2015 14:19:03 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Objective and Subjective ZPDs In-Reply-To: References: <55EC0DD8.2060005@mira.net> Message-ID: <55ED1037.9000408@mira.net> Great article by Seth, David. So thoroughly researched and clearly explained. I think the problem with the notion of subjective and objective ZPDs is that like many others before him Seth has mixed up the subjective/objective distinction with the categories of universal, individual and particular, which is also why we get the "more or less" entering into what is supposed to be objective. A N Leontyev does the same thing with meanings which are "more or less objective". The culturally and historically normative is universal; that is what "universal" means. Like "normative" it does not mean "objective", as if every individual had the same one. They don't. What Seth calls the "subjective" ZPD should be called "individual." It is no more subjective than the so-called "objective ZPD. What is missing is that the universal it only manifested in the "particular" conditions of each family, school, etc., and it is this particular which is actual (=acting) for the given child, and not "more or less" active. ZPD is best retained, I think, as the concept which is both subjective and objective and inseparably so. Talking about subjective *and* objective ZPDs may have heuristic and pedagogical value, but I think it can, in the end, also contribute to confusion. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 6/09/2015 9:44 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Sure, Andy. I think there's a copy on the lchc discussions > site. But here's a pdf of an early draft from Gordon > Wells' course pack. > > David Kellogg > > On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > David, do you have a PDF of an article which explains > this double-barrelled concept? > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > On 6/09/2015 6:26 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > Martin, Andy, Mike...and Others: > > I've been trying to make sense out of Seth > Chaiklin's distinction between > the "objective" ZPD and the subjective one. He's > obviously got in mind > exactly the material we are now translating: > Vygotsky's attempt to render > the ZPD as a "next zone of development", where the > next zone of development > is either > > a) given by the social situation of development > (and therefore more or less > the same for a whole age group of children). > > b) given by the "ripening functions" in the lines > of development (and > therefore different for every individual child). > > So here's what I've got in chart form. As you'll > see, it's very different > from the chart that Andy had in his 2009 article, > and also somewhat > different from the very elegant formulations that > Martin had (which to my > chagrin I can't remember very well). > > I've added a column of linguistic indicators taken > from Halliday's 2002 > volume on early childhood language, because I have > to be able to apply all > this to data some day very soon..... > > This is a very sketchy schematicky sort of > preliminary draft, and > criticisms, objections, imprecations, and even > just gutteral mutterings > would be most welcome. > > David Kellogg > > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Sep 6 22:37:18 2015 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 14:37:18 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Objective and Subjective ZPDs In-Reply-To: <55ED1037.9000408@mira.net> References: <55EC0DD8.2060005@mira.net> <55ED1037.9000408@mira.net> Message-ID: Mike,Andy-- Being Chinese, my late mother in law didn't like portraits very much; she preferred good landscapes with human figures sparse and rather small, crushed and rendered insignificant by towering heights of natural beauty. Being my mother in law, she was also critical of my skills in general and of my portraits of her in particular. So she would remind me lovingly that landscapes never complain about the likeness, and portrait sitters almost invariably do. I told her that with human figures, when you want a good likeness of a face, you just kind of smudge the outlines and make the proportions a little fuzzy, and the human viewer's affective perception will (more or less) gladly supply the rest. When you do that with a landscape, it just looks like you painted it in the rain with your glasses all wet. The "more or less" part was me, not Seth. I am a fuzzy thinker, and I have really stopped apologizing for it and even defended it at some length, here on xmca among other places (e.g. my very first article, published over ten years ago after five rejections, where I argued that "group ZPDs existed and had to be differentiated from individual ones). I guess I think that fuzzy thinking reflects the fuzzyl categories of language, and therefore the fuzziness of human experience. In general when we try to be more clear cut and precise than the experiential categories of natural language, we end up with categories of thought that are far too distinct and insufficiently linked. So there's a good reason why Vygotsky likes to speak in triplets (e.g. "subjective", "internal", "individual" vs. "objective", "external", "social"). Surely, Andy, Vygotsky wishes us to distinguish between the social situation of development and the neoformations--as he points out, the creation of the neoformation is what liquidates the social situation of development (you yourself made the crucial point that the 'social situation' includes both the child and the environment, and for precisely this reason it involves a tension between individual and social, between external and internal, and--dare I say it--between objective and subjective. Just as surely, he would like to provide some link between the two, and it's for that reason he has lines of development. To tell you the truth, that's what I got out of your critique of Engestrom--without MISconceptions, concepts simply cannot develop, and with only non-fuzzy categories, we can have a perfectly good systems analysis, but no analysis into units. The one part of your Engestrom paper I really disagreed with was where you say that the object of analysis can be rendered as nothing but millions of units of analysis. Buildings are not just billions of bricks; humans are not just trillions of cells, and language is not made up of hextillions of words. In between the brick and the building, there are human shaped units like rooms and there are environment shaped units like floors and ceilings, in between the cell and the human there are organs and systems, whose respiration and excretion is not like a cell but not exactly like a whole human being either, and in between the word and the clause there are lots of intermediate units like groups, phrases, and so on. So I think there must be units that are more clause like and units that are more text lke too. There always has to be some qualitative difference as well as quantitative differences between the Ur-phenomenon (the unit of analysis, word meaning, perizhivanie, etc.) and the macro phenomenon. So for analysis into units to work at all, we need fuzzy thinking. David Kellogg On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > Great article by Seth, David. So thoroughly researched and clearly > explained. > I think the problem with the notion of subjective and objective ZPDs is > that like many others before him Seth has mixed up the subjective/objective > distinction with the categories of universal, individual and particular, > which is also why we get the "more or less" entering into what is supposed > to be objective. A N Leontyev does the same thing with meanings which are > "more or less objective". > The culturally and historically normative is universal; that is what > "universal" means. Like "normative" it does not mean "objective", as if > every individual had the same one. They don't. > What Seth calls the "subjective" ZPD should be called "individual." It is > no more subjective than the so-called "objective ZPD. > What is missing is that the universal it only manifested in the > "particular" conditions of each family, school, etc., and it is this > particular which is actual (=acting) for the given child, and not "more or > less" active. > ZPD is best retained, I think, as the concept which is both subjective and > objective and inseparably so. Talking about subjective *and* objective ZPDs > may have heuristic and pedagogical value, but I think it can, in the end, > also contribute to confusion. > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 6/09/2015 9:44 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > >> Sure, Andy. I think there's a copy on the lchc discussions site. But >> here's a pdf of an early draft from Gordon Wells' course pack. >> >> David Kellogg >> >> On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Andy Blunden > ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: >> >> David, do you have a PDF of an article which explains >> this double-barrelled concept? >> Andy >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> >> On 6/09/2015 6:26 PM, David Kellogg wrote: >> >> Martin, Andy, Mike...and Others: >> >> I've been trying to make sense out of Seth >> Chaiklin's distinction between >> the "objective" ZPD and the subjective one. He's >> obviously got in mind >> exactly the material we are now translating: >> Vygotsky's attempt to render >> the ZPD as a "next zone of development", where the >> next zone of development >> is either >> >> a) given by the social situation of development >> (and therefore more or less >> the same for a whole age group of children). >> >> b) given by the "ripening functions" in the lines >> of development (and >> therefore different for every individual child). >> >> So here's what I've got in chart form. As you'll >> see, it's very different >> from the chart that Andy had in his 2009 article, >> and also somewhat >> different from the very elegant formulations that >> Martin had (which to my >> chagrin I can't remember very well). >> >> I've added a column of linguistic indicators taken >> from Halliday's 2002 >> volume on early childhood language, because I have >> to be able to apply all >> this to data some day very soon..... >> >> This is a very sketchy schematicky sort of >> preliminary draft, and >> criticisms, objections, imprecations, and even >> just gutteral mutterings >> would be most welcome. >> >> David Kellogg >> >> >> >> > From ablunden@mira.net Mon Sep 7 01:50:15 2015 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2015 18:50:15 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Objective and Subjective ZPDs In-Reply-To: References: <55EC0DD8.2060005@mira.net> <55ED1037.9000408@mira.net> Message-ID: <55ED4FC7.3040408@mira.net> Of course we must distinguish, David, between between the environment and the neoformations (which are the opposites here) and the social situation of development to boot. Distinctions are necessary wherever there is a word. But the point is whether you have a concept of the unity, and if so whether you can make a beginning from that unity and proceed by means of differentiation. This is I believe, Vygotsky's method, which is in contrast to the approach which takes two concepts, each of them understood and defined independently of one another, and then *glues* them together. Vygotsky is very good at giving us concepts which are subject-objects; when we grasp these concepts, then we can grasp subjective and objective aspects of the whole. The whole is the social situation of development; the child's environment is just one aspect of the SSD cannot be meaningfully and completely described if it is taken as a starting point. The same goes for the psychological neoformation. An action is a unity of consciousness and behaviour, for example, and that is a starting point for us. Ad. units of analysis. There is no implication that every unit is the same. Every molecule of H2O is identical but that is a peculiarity of the quantum world. A house is built of many different kinds of component, many of them bricks, and an organism is made up of many different kinds of cell, even though all these cells appeared by differentiation from originally a very simple organism. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 7/09/2015 3:37 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Mike,Andy-- > > ... > > Surely, Andy, Vygotsky wishes us to distinguish between > the social situation of development and the > neoformations--as he points out, the creation of the > neoformation is what liquidates the social situation of > development (you yourself made the crucial point that the > 'social situation' includes both the child and the > environment, and for precisely this reason it involves a > tension between individual and social, between external > and internal, and--dare I say it--between objective and > subjective. Just as surely, he would like to provide some > link between the two, and it's for that reason he has > lines of development. To tell you the truth, that's what I > got out of your critique of Engestrom--without > MISconceptions, concepts simply cannot develop, and with > only non-fuzzy categories, we can have a perfectly good > systems analysis, but no analysis into units. > > The one part of your Engestrom paper I really disagreed > with was where you say that the object of analysis can be > rendered as nothing but millions of units of analysis. > Buildings are not just billions of bricks; humans are not > just trillions of cells, and language is not made up of > hextillions of words. In between the brick and the > building, there are human shaped units like rooms and > there are environment shaped units like floors and > ceilings, in between the cell and the human there are > organs and systems, whose respiration and excretion is not > like a cell but not exactly like a whole human being > either, and in between the word and the clause there are > lots of intermediate units like groups, phrases, and so > on. So I think there must be units that are more clause > like and units that are more text lke too. There always > has to be some qualitative difference as well as > quantitative differences between the Ur-phenomenon (the > unit of analysis, word meaning, perizhivanie, etc.) and > the macro phenomenon. So for analysis into units to work > at all, we need fuzzy thinking. > > David Kellogg > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > Great article by Seth, David. So thoroughly researched > and clearly explained. > I think the problem with the notion of subjective and > objective ZPDs is that like many others before him > Seth has mixed up the subjective/objective distinction > with the categories of universal, individual and > particular, which is also why we get the "more or > less" entering into what is supposed to be objective. > A N Leontyev does the same thing with meanings which > are "more or less objective". > The culturally and historically normative is > universal; that is what "universal" means. Like > "normative" it does not mean "objective", as if every > individual had the same one. They don't. > What Seth calls the "subjective" ZPD should be called > "individual." It is no more subjective than the > so-called "objective ZPD. > What is missing is that the universal it only > manifested in the "particular" conditions of each > family, school, etc., and it is this particular which > is actual (=acting) for the given child, and not "more > or less" active. > ZPD is best retained, I think, as the concept which is > both subjective and objective and inseparably so. > Talking about subjective *and* objective ZPDs may have > heuristic and pedagogical value, but I think it can, > in the end, also contribute to confusion. > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > On 6/09/2015 6:26 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > > Martin, Andy, Mike...and Others: > > I've been trying to make sense out of Seth > Chaiklin's distinction between > the "objective" ZPD and the subjective > one. He's > obviously got in mind > exactly the material we are now translating: > Vygotsky's attempt to render > the ZPD as a "next zone of development", > where the > next zone of development > is either > > a) given by the social situation of > development > (and therefore more or less > the same for a whole age group of children). > > b) given by the "ripening functions" in > the lines > of development (and > therefore different for every individual > child). > > So here's what I've got in chart form. As > you'll > see, it's very different > from the chart that Andy had in his 2009 > article, > and also somewhat > different from the very elegant > formulations that > Martin had (which to my > chagrin I can't remember very well). > > I've added a column of linguistic > indicators taken > from Halliday's 2002 > volume on early childhood language, > because I have > to be able to apply all > this to data some day very soon..... > > This is a very sketchy schematicky sort of > preliminary draft, and > criticisms, objections, imprecations, and even > just gutteral mutterings > would be most welcome. > > David Kellogg > > > > > From pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu Mon Sep 7 10:13:54 2015 From: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu (Peter Feigenbaum [Staff]) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:13:54 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: <729975170.2722417.1441467957848.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <55E710F5.2020903@mira.net> <729975170.2722417.1441467957848.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Colleagues, I just want to wrap up this thread--and to thank those who responded--by addressing in turn some of the issues you've raised. 1) First of all, regarding the 2 x 2 *Quadrant Thingy* (as Steve Gabosh is fond of calling it): Like Peg Griffin, I consider it a helpful heuristic tool. It is useful when comparing one set of binary categories or dialectical oppositions with another set--an exercise that Steve and I engaged in with respect to the many dialectical oppositions raised by Vygotsky's theory. This tool can be applied to any conceptual content, and therefore has wide utility. But as some of you have pointed out, there are limits to its usefulness, and sometimes the value lies in amplifying the contents of a single quadrant. Beyond its use as an analytical lever, however, I don't think it has much philosophical import. 2) Peter S.: Many thanks for your article. I only wish it had been available when Steve and I were hammering out the characteristics of a *practical* concept! I appreciate the clarity of your insights into this phenomenon, which puts more flesh on the bones of this somewhat elusive concept. In addition, I had not considered the special difficulties posed by *social* concepts; I've been entirely focused on children's step-by-step acquisition of the hierarchical structure of language (from words to phrases to sentences to narratives) and the corresponding step-by-step development of their conceptual understanding of this hierarchy, and what this whole process implies about the development from experiential to logical reasoning. With *social* concepts, you do indeed complicate the problem of the development of verbal thinking by raising issues that go beyond achieving mastery at solving well-defined logical problems. Thanks for bringing all that complication out into the light. 3) In the context of the 2 x 2 matrix, Haydi and some others raised the issue of Ilyenkov's notion of ascending to the level of the concrete. Steve and I debated this idea and did not come to an agreement about how it maps out. Personally, I believe the development of verbal thinking in children begins with the first words in the Concrete-Particular quadrant during the period of Syncretic conceptual thinking and achieves its most advanced state (in this current historical period) with the acquisition of narrative structures in the Abstract-General quadrant corresponding to the period of *true* concepts. Precisely which quadrant(s) the complexive and pre-conceptual forms of understanding pass through during development is still beyond my grasp--although I suspect that the concrete-abstract qualities of verbal thinking may originate in the speech system, whereas the particular-general qualities of verbal thinking may originate in the thinking system, and that each is following a different path while pulling the other into its orbit. In addition to the developmental path of verbal thinking, however, is the *application* of verbal thinking to practical problems--and that is where I believe Ilyenkov's notion comes into play. In solving practical problems, one must *cycle* from the concrete-particular to the abstract-general and then RETURN to the concrete-particular--where the abstract-general knowledge thus acquired can be usefully applied. Higher mental functions are of little value if they are not applied in practice. The activity of bringing theory back to the realm of practice is how I understand the notion of *ascending to the concrete*. 4) Which brings me full circle: back to Mike's interest in Romantic Science and the blending of the nomothetic and the idiographic. Luria and Sacks were both remarkable for their ability to take a concrete, particular case, consider it from a highly theoretical perspective, and then apply their theoretical understanding to that case either to perform a diagnosis or propose a remedial measure. It seems to me that the *integration* of theory and practice requires a greater understanding than either activity alone. And I believe that integration is what made both of them such outstanding scientist/clinicians. My two cents! Thanks to all. Peter F. On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 11:45 AM, peter jones wrote: > Sorry I struggle to keep up...There are clearly contexts in which Hodges' > model would reduce to emphasize one domain. Can we say the model collapses > catastrophically? The obvious example - and a diagnostic one - is an > individual suffering a sudden collapse and apparent loss of consciousness. > The priorities are physical - basic life support - we also need to screen > the situation, environment lest we become the next casualty. As Peg points > out the other panes are still there, but they are relevant, salient, > in-play at this emergency point in time. As process is followed however it > won't be long until questions are asked about next of kin, assuring dignity > due to clothing being cut/removed, what does policy say about the equipment > used....? > Thanks to Rafi for the paper by Kieran Healy on 'nuance' which notes: > It is the act of making?or the call to make?some bit of theory ?richer? or > ?moresophisticated? by adding complexity to it, usually by way of some > additional dimension,level, or aspect, but in the absence of any strong > means of disciplining or specifyingthe relationship between the new > elements and the existing ones (p.2). > > I'm not sure if the purposes of the model in my studies is assisted (in > some way?) by seeking to conjoin all academic disciplines (make it richer) > and not just sociology, the intersubjective (humanistic)? > In health (especially) it is essential for tools to be evidence based (and > yet this too is another debate). Hodges' model isn't a theory and I think > some people dismiss it as simplistic based on the 2x2 structure. > Hodges' is concerned with what kind of domain knowledge is needed to solve > a problem, pose a question, well formed argument... at a certain point in > time (context). The structure of the model arises from questions of 'who' > (individual OR group); and the types of things (humanistic-mechanistic) > that healthcare workers then do for said individual's - groups. > In the Romantic Science sense is Hodges' model a series of (potential) > conceptual spaces that as a whole is pantological? > Of these nuance traps, Sociology has historically been most prone to the > nuanceof the conceptual framework (Rule 1997, Chapter 4) (p.3). > > Must look up Rule. This is interesting too as 'holism' (and with it > Romantic Science?) as in (w)holistic - integrated care is often dismissed > as a crystal-faced light-reflecting-refracting fad. > Peter Jones > @h2cm > > > From: Andy Blunden > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Sent: Wednesday, 2 September 2015, 16:08 > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > So this is a diagnostic tool, Peg? > Could you spell this out a little more for someone who still > doesn't grasp what you are talking about? :) > andy > intrigued. > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 3/09/2015 12:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > > What I did not make clear is that the JoHari window is not really the > same as a matrix. It is a different kind of tool than I think David and > Peter are thinking about. > > Here's the trick: You change the pane sizes to emphasize the one of the > four panes you are currently acting on -- but all four panes are always > there. > > So you can make the "concrete specific" pane HUGE by moving the top > bottom inner divider far to the right and moving the left right inner > divider far to the bottom. Or you can move only one of the dividers. And > you can move the dividers without such extremes. > > > > Even if a diagnosis/treatment only does the first move I described, > there's little abstract involved. I don't mind that so much if the actors > are involved in an emergency triage activity, but without the abstract you > are going on observables very influenced by perceptual and cultural access > of the actors and you might not even have the most useful template from the > general to guide/evaluate your trials and errors. So you'd better shift > the panes pretty soon before things get way off base. > > > > You can also fool around with the arrangement of the terms that name the > panes: Do you get more out of concrete vs. specific or more out of > specific vs. concrete (in David's terms the anchors for the cline). Same > for abstract vs. concrete or concrete vs. abstract. > > PG > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Peg > Griffin > > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:55 PM > > To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > As far as I understand those terms (nomothetic and idiographic), the > combined motor method does unite them and so arrives at dual stimulation, > given the non-accidental mosaic. > > But I don't know that my understanding goes far enough or too far! > > Peg > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike > cole > > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:08 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > Is that simultaneously uniting the nomothetic and idiographic, Peg? That > is the way Luria talked about it. > > mike > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Peg Griffin > wrote: > > > >> Just in a short-hand: > >> > >> Concrete Specific: Zasetsky (The man with the shattered world) > >> > >> Concrete General: People with traumatic brain injury during WWII > >> > >> Abstract General: Brain is a mosaic of specific domains with actions > >> that interact in dual stimulations (not pure will) > >> > >> Abstract Specific: A man acts to recall using images; it fails on a > >> certain target. The man starts appears to abandon the recall by > >> acting an intimately related system ? e.g., reciting the alphabet. > >> But the recital is ?interrupted? when it bumps into the original > >> recall target and the recall is successful. > >> > >> > >> > >> For diagnosis and/or treatment, we must rise to the concrete specific. > >> > >> > >> > >> Sorry I don?t have time to develop this further but I am sure many on > >> this list do, and I know that Luria and Sacks did so in wondrous and > >> glorious instances. > >> > >> Peg > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net] > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:21 AM > >> To: Peg Griffin; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > >> > >> > >> > >> Could you give an example, Peg? > >> andy > >> > >> _____ > >> > >> *Andy Blunden* > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > >> > >> On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > >> > >> What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and Sachs ? > >> with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made (based > >> on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and Harrington > >> Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill in each of the > four cells in > >> the square about an issue of interest. It helps me think about > >> genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. > >> Concrete Abstract > >> Specific > >> General > >> > >> A romantic square, > >> Peg > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > >> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rod > >> Parker-Rees > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM > >> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > >> > >> Thanks for posting this, Andy. > >> > >> I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his > >> reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his observation > >> that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event isolated > >> from other things or events. Its real object is to see and understand > >> the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'. > >> > >> We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or less) > >> on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but our > >> communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using these > >> categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of science > >> but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use of > >> language and more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The > >> romantic focus on an 'individual' can only ever be conducted in the > >> medium of a very un-individual language and no person's life could > >> possibly be understood without reference to relationships with other > >> persons which then spread roots and branches out to a forest of > connections, causes and consequences. > >> > >> David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of theory if > >> one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case and > >> Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the > >> concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but the > >> creative sources of great historical events and the important ideas > >> and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the contribution > >> individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than themselves > >> but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want neither to split > >> living reality into its elementary components nor to represent the > >> wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that lose the > properties of the phenomena themselves'. > >> > >> I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is > >> particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how all > >> minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' > >> lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory > >> associations which words bring with them in a way which, for most of > >> us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a > >> particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that every > >> person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, > >> behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface of a > >> pool of connections and associations which can never be shared with or > >> known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can only > >> go so far in understanding another person's understanding and much > >> less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone is a > >> very different thing from being able to share that knowledge in a > >> rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of the > >> spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge is > >> entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that swirl > beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! > >> > >> I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what lies > >> beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young children > >> are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so powerfully > >> dominated by abstractions. > >> > >> All the best, > >> > >> Rod > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> ] > >> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > >> Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > >> > >> Try this, in Word this time. > >> Andy > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> *Andy Blunden* > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > >> On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: > >> > >> ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the > >> chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST be > >> somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. > >> > >> After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas seems > >> appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended essay's > >> on his view of Romantic Science. > >> > >> It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, were > >> not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of their > >> enterprise encompassed those fields and more. > >> > >> Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual case in > >> no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their work. > >> Nor does Luria argue so. > >> > >> mike > >> ? > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg >> > wrote: > >> > >> I think the problem with this view of romantic science > >> is that it > >> completely precludes building a psychology on a > >> sociology. In that sense > >> (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist > >> at all. Vygotsky > >> certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the > >> individual case"; such > >> an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of > >> theory. I'm not sure > >> Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a > >> Shattered Mind" and > >> "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. > >> Remember the main > >> criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human > >> Conflicts" was always that > >> it was too quantitative. > >> > >> There are, of course, some areas of psychology that > >> are well studied as > >> case histories. Recently, I've been looking into > >> suicidology, and in > >> particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered > >> the linguistic > >> analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have > >> been influenced, as > >> early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work > >> on schizophrinia). > >> Now you would think that if ever there was a field > >> that would benefit from > >> total immersion in the individual case, this is one. > >> But Shneidman says > >> that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal > >> phrases, and as a > >> consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively > >> (one of his first > >> studies was simply to sort a pile of real and > >> imitation suicide notes and > >> carefully note the criteria he had when he made > >> correct judgements). And of > >> course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide > >> is that the individual > >> case can be utterly disregarded, since the great > >> variations are > >> sociological and the psychological variables all seem > >> trivial, transient, > >> or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a > >> large scale (as we must > >> these days). Shneidman says he has never read a > >> suicide note he would want > >> to have written. > >> > >> David Kellogg > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden > >> >> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: > >> > >> > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' > >> style of Romantic > >> > Science was his complete immersion in the individual > >> case before him, and > >> > development of a science of complete persons. The > >> paradigm of this type of > >> > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative > >> Science" I suppose. The > >> > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each > >> case, e.g. facial > >> > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a > >> "covering law" for just this > >> > aspect. > >> > Andy > >> > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > *Andy Blunden* > >> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > >> < > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/> > >> > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > >> > > >> >> Mike, > >> >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that > >> naysayers were cited in > >> >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering > >> if some of that push back > >> >> was related to his practice of romantic science, > >> which, if I understand > >> >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in > >> the phenomena of > >> >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, > >> for example, immersed > >> >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His > >> writing prefigures the cell > >> >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of > >> microscopes could not confirm > >> >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner > >> and Sacks makes me > >> >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at > >> issue. Different styles > >> >> of research bring different construals. This may be > >> the bane of > >> >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really > >> make Sacks less of a > >> >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? > >> >> Henry > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole > >> > > >> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our > >> connections with Luria and > >> >>> the fact that we > >> >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a > >> romantic science. He was a > >> >>> shy > >> >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, > >> and the difference > >> >>> between > >> >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the > >> interview with them that > >> >>> someone > >> >>> pirated on > >> >>> to youtube. > >> >>> > >> >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, > >> engaging intellectually all > >> >>> the while. > >> >>> > >> >>> mike > >> >>> > >> >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin > >> >> martinl@azscience.org>> > >> >>> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the > >> privilege of spending an > >> >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting > >> Jerry Bruner and Carol > >> >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in for Sylvia who > >> couldn't make the dinner - it > >> >>>> was > >> >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you > >> ever hear from Bruner? I > >> >>>> wonder if he's still active. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Laura > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Sent from my iPad > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole > >> > > >> wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Dear Colleagues --- > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news > >> that Oliver Sacks has > >> >>>> succumbed to cancer. > >> >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. > >> >>>> mike > >> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM > >> >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; > >> Neurologist and Author > >> >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks > >> >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com >> lchcmike@gmail.com> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com > >> : > >> Oliver Sacks Dies at > >> 82; Neurologist > >> >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks > >> >>>> < > >> >>>> > >> > >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > >> a < > >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > >> a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 > >> 972441657668®i_id=0> > >> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >> >>>> By > >> >>>> GREGORY COWLES > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest > >> pathways in > >> >>>> best-selling > >> >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife > >> for a Hat,? achieving > >> >>>> a > >> >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. > >> >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: > >> http://nyti.ms/1LL040D > >> >>>> < > >> >>>> > >> > >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > >> a < > >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > >> a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 > >> 972441657668®i_id=0> > >> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >> >>>> To > >> >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times > >> articles, subscribe today. > >> >>>> See > >> >>>> Subscription Options. > >> >>>> < > >> >>>> > >> > >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC > >> IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP > >> AvEGfk= > >> < > >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC > >> IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP > >> AvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_i > >> d=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >> >>>> To > >> >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add > >> nytdirect@nytimes.com >> nytdirect@nytimes.com> > >> to your > >> >>>> address book. Advertisement > >> >>>> > >> >>>> < > >> >>>> > >> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto < > >> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secu > >> re.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn > >> 1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=Mis > >> tressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistr > >> essamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview> > >> &opzn&page= > >> > secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Copyright 2015 > >> >>>> < > >> >>>> > >> > >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP > >> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ== > >> < > >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP > >> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31 > >> 502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668&r > >> egi_id=0> > >> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> | The New York Times Company > >> >>>> < > >> >>>> > >> > >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcS > >> h < > >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcS > >> h&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 > >> 972441657668®i_id=0> > >> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> -- > >> >>>> > >> >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a > >> natural science with an > >> >>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>> -- > >> >>> > >> >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a > >> natural science with an > >> >>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > >> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] < > >> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> < > >> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > >> > >> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely > >> for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not > >> the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the > >> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on > it. > >> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know > >> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not > >> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University > >> accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to > >> scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept > >> responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this > >> email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services > >> unless accompanied by an official order form. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu From lpscholar2@gmail.com Mon Sep 7 10:59:51 2015 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 10:59:51 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: References: <55E710F5.2020903@mira.net> <729975170.2722417.1441467957848.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <55edd0a5.656e440a.0d1d.117e@mx.google.com> Peter, Thank you for being a dialogue partner. I have enjoyed reading about the practice of grids and their use (in our hands). David Kellogg sent his version using Seth Chaiklin's article for assistance. Andy's comments that subjective and objective as *concepts* may more appropriately be considered through the conceptions (particular, abstract, and concrete). My interest is in the practice of multiple "interpretations" of the same word/concept that develops the concept. Seth's article as a case to make this point. Seth says our (common) KNOWLEDGE of the concept "zpd" originates within a few textual fragments and our articles mostly REFLECT these textual fragments as "interpretations". So the concept is (common) and is actual (as a negotiating tool) when used. Seth asks, is this common KNOWLEDGE of the concept the ONLY OR CORE definition of the concept? Seth makes a case that unless other (plural) additional texts are "interpreted" we will not develop a more ADEQUATE OR PROPER "interpretation" of the concept "zpd". Peter, it is this approach taken by Seth of exploring multiple plural "interpretations that leads to "populating" or negotiating the "meaning" of "zpd" as an example of a "true concept" being "an" experience (in Dewey's meaning of experience. Larry -----Original Message----- From: "Peter Feigenbaum [Staff]" Sent: ?2015-?09-?07 10:16 AM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science Colleagues, I just want to wrap up this thread--and to thank those who responded--by addressing in turn some of the issues you've raised. 1) First of all, regarding the 2 x 2 *Quadrant Thingy* (as Steve Gabosh is fond of calling it): Like Peg Griffin, I consider it a helpful heuristic tool. It is useful when comparing one set of binary categories or dialectical oppositions with another set--an exercise that Steve and I engaged in with respect to the many dialectical oppositions raised by Vygotsky's theory. This tool can be applied to any conceptual content, and therefore has wide utility. But as some of you have pointed out, there are limits to its usefulness, and sometimes the value lies in amplifying the contents of a single quadrant. Beyond its use as an analytical lever, however, I don't think it has much philosophical import. 2) Peter S.: Many thanks for your article. I only wish it had been available when Steve and I were hammering out the characteristics of a *practical* concept! I appreciate the clarity of your insights into this phenomenon, which puts more flesh on the bones of this somewhat elusive concept. In addition, I had not considered the special difficulties posed by *social* concepts; I've been entirely focused on children's step-by-step acquisition of the hierarchical structure of language (from words to phrases to sentences to narratives) and the corresponding step-by-step development of their conceptual understanding of this hierarchy, and what this whole process implies about the development from experiential to logical reasoning. With *social* concepts, you do indeed complicate the problem of the development of verbal thinking by raising issues that go beyond achieving mastery at solving well-defined logical problems. Thanks for bringing all that complication out into the light. 3) In the context of the 2 x 2 matrix, Haydi and some others raised the issue of Ilyenkov's notion of ascending to the level of the concrete. Steve and I debated this idea and did not come to an agreement about how it maps out. Personally, I believe the development of verbal thinking in children begins with the first words in the Concrete-Particular quadrant during the period of Syncretic conceptual thinking and achieves its most advanced state (in this current historical period) with the acquisition of narrative structures in the Abstract-General quadrant corresponding to the period of *true* concepts. Precisely which quadrant(s) the complexive and pre-conceptual forms of understanding pass through during development is still beyond my grasp--although I suspect that the concrete-abstract qualities of verbal thinking may originate in the speech system, whereas the particular-general qualities of verbal thinking may originate in the thinking system, and that each is following a different path while pulling the other into its orbit. In addition to the developmental path of verbal thinking, however, is the *application* of verbal thinking to practical problems--and that is where I believe Ilyenkov's notion comes into play. In solving practical problems, one must *cycle* from the concrete-particular to the abstract-general and then RETURN to the concrete-particular--where the abstract-general knowledge thus acquired can be usefully applied. Higher mental functions are of little value if they are not applied in practice. The activity of bringing theory back to the realm of practice is how I understand the notion of *ascending to the concrete*. 4) Which brings me full circle: back to Mike's interest in Romantic Science and the blending of the nomothetic and the idiographic. Luria and Sacks were both remarkable for their ability to take a concrete, particular case, consider it from a highly theoretical perspective, and then apply their theoretical understanding to that case either to perform a diagnosis or propose a remedial measure. It seems to me that the *integration* of theory and practice requires a greater understanding than either activity alone. And I believe that integration is what made both of them such outstanding scientist/clinicians. My two cents! Thanks to all. Peter F. On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 11:45 AM, peter jones wrote: > Sorry I struggle to keep up...There are clearly contexts in which Hodges' > model would reduce to emphasize one domain. Can we say the model collapses > catastrophically? The obvious example - and a diagnostic one - is an > individual suffering a sudden collapse and apparent loss of consciousness. > The priorities are physical - basic life support - we also need to screen > the situation, environment lest we become the next casualty. As Peg points > out the other panes are still there, but they are relevant, salient, > in-play at this emergency point in time. As process is followed however it > won't be long until questions are asked about next of kin, assuring dignity > due to clothing being cut/removed, what does policy say about the equipment > used....? > Thanks to Rafi for the paper by Kieran Healy on 'nuance' which notes: > It is the act of making?or the call to make?some bit of theory ?richer? or > ?moresophisticated? by adding complexity to it, usually by way of some > additional dimension,level, or aspect, but in the absence of any strong > means of disciplining or specifyingthe relationship between the new > elements and the existing ones (p.2). > > I'm not sure if the purposes of the model in my studies is assisted (in > some way?) by seeking to conjoin all academic disciplines (make it richer) > and not just sociology, the intersubjective (humanistic)? > In health (especially) it is essential for tools to be evidence based (and > yet this too is another debate). Hodges' model isn't a theory and I think > some people dismiss it as simplistic based on the 2x2 structure. > Hodges' is concerned with what kind of domain knowledge is needed to solve > a problem, pose a question, well formed argument... at a certain point in > time (context). The structure of the model arises from questions of 'who' > (individual OR group); and the types of things (humanistic-mechanistic) > that healthcare workers then do for said individual's - groups. > In the Romantic Science sense is Hodges' model a series of (potential) > conceptual spaces that as a whole is pantological? > Of these nuance traps, Sociology has historically been most prone to the > nuanceof the conceptual framework (Rule 1997, Chapter 4) (p.3). > > Must look up Rule. This is interesting too as 'holism' (and with it > Romantic Science?) as in (w)holistic - integrated care is often dismissed > as a crystal-faced light-reflecting-refracting fad. > Peter Jones > @h2cm > > > From: Andy Blunden > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Sent: Wednesday, 2 September 2015, 16:08 > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > So this is a diagnostic tool, Peg? > Could you spell this out a little more for someone who still > doesn't grasp what you are talking about? :) > andy > intrigued. > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 3/09/2015 12:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > > What I did not make clear is that the JoHari window is not really the > same as a matrix. It is a different kind of tool than I think David and > Peter are thinking about. > > Here's the trick: You change the pane sizes to emphasize the one of the > four panes you are currently acting on -- but all four panes are always > there. > > So you can make the "concrete specific" pane HUGE by moving the top > bottom inner divider far to the right and moving the left right inner > divider far to the bottom. Or you can move only one of the dividers. And > you can move the dividers without such extremes. > > > > Even if a diagnosis/treatment only does the first move I described, > there's little abstract involved. I don't mind that so much if the actors > are involved in an emergency triage activity, but without the abstract you > are going on observables very influenced by perceptual and cultural access > of the actors and you might not even have the most useful template from the > general to guide/evaluate your trials and errors. So you'd better shift > the panes pretty soon before things get way off base. > > > > You can also fool around with the arrangement of the terms that name the > panes: Do you get more out of concrete vs. specific or more out of > specific vs. concrete (in David's terms the anchors for the cline). Same > for abstract vs. concrete or concrete vs. abstract. > > PG > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Peg > Griffin > > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:55 PM > > To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > As far as I understand those terms (nomothetic and idiographic), the > combined motor method does unite them and so arrives at dual stimulation, > given the non-accidental mosaic. > > But I don't know that my understanding goes far enough or too far! > > Peg > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike > cole > > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:08 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > Is that simultaneously uniting the nomothetic and idiographic, Peg? That > is the way Luria talked about it. > > mike > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Peg Griffin > wrote: > > > >> Just in a short-hand: > >> > >> Concrete Specific: Zasetsky (The man with the shattered world) > >> > >> Concrete General: People with traumatic brain injury during WWII > >> > >> Abstract General: Brain is a mosaic of specific domains with actions > >> that interact in dual stimulations (not pure will) > >> > >> Abstract Specific: A man acts to recall using images; it fails on a > >> certain target. The man starts appears to abandon the recall by > >> acting an intimately related system ? e.g., reciting the alphabet. > >> But the recital is ?interrupted? when it bumps into the original > >> recall target and the recall is successful. > >> > >> > >> > >> For diagnosis and/or treatment, we must rise to the concrete specific. > >> > >> > >> > >> Sorry I don?t have time to develop this further but I am sure many on > >> this list do, and I know that Luria and Sacks did so in wondrous and > >> glorious instances. > >> > >> Peg > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net] > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:21 AM > >> To: Peg Griffin; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > >> > >> > >> > >> Could you give an example, Peg? > >> andy > >> > >> _____ > >> > >> *Andy Blunden* > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > >> > >> On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > >> > >> What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and Sachs ? > >> with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made (based > >> on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and Harrington > >> Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill in each of the > four cells in > >> the square about an issue of interest. It helps me think about > >> genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. > >> Concrete Abstract > >> Specific > >> General > >> > >> A romantic square, > >> Peg > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > >> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rod > >> Parker-Rees > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM > >> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > >> > >> Thanks for posting this, Andy. > >> > >> I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his > >> reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his observation > >> that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event isolated > >> from other things or events. Its real object is to see and understand > >> the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'. > >> > >> We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or less) > >> on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but our > >> communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using these > >> categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of science > >> but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use of > >> language and more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The > >> romantic focus on an 'individual' can only ever be conducted in the > >> medium of a very un-individual language and no person's life could > >> possibly be understood without reference to relationships with other > >> persons which then spread roots and branches out to a forest of > connections, causes and consequences. > >> > >> David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of theory if > >> one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case and > >> Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the > >> concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but the > >> creative sources of great historical events and the important ideas > >> and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the contribution > >> individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than themselves > >> but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want neither to split > >> living reality into its elementary components nor to represent the > >> wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that lose the > properties of the phenomena themselves'. > >> > >> I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is > >> particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how all > >> minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' > >> lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory > >> associations which words bring with them in a way which, for most of > >> us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a > >> particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that every > >> person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, > >> behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface of a > >> pool of connections and associations which can never be shared with or > >> known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can only > >> go so far in understanding another person's understanding and much > >> less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone is a > >> very different thing from being able to share that knowledge in a > >> rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of the > >> spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge is > >> entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that swirl > beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! > >> > >> I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what lies > >> beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young children > >> are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so powerfully > >> dominated by abstractions. > >> > >> All the best, > >> > >> Rod > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> ] > >> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > >> Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > >> > >> Try this, in Word this time. > >> Andy > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> *Andy Blunden* > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > >> On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: > >> > >> ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the > >> chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST be > >> somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. > >> > >> After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas seems > >> appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended essay's > >> on his view of Romantic Science. > >> > >> It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, were > >> not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of their > >> enterprise encompassed those fields and more. > >> > >> Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual case in > >> no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their work. > >> Nor does Luria argue so. > >> > >> mike > >> ? > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg >> > wrote: > >> > >> I think the problem with this view of romantic science > >> is that it > >> completely precludes building a psychology on a > >> sociology. In that sense > >> (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist > >> at all. Vygotsky > >> certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the > >> individual case"; such > >> an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of > >> theory. I'm not sure > >> Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a > >> Shattered Mind" and > >> "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. > >> Remember the main > >> criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human > >> Conflicts" was always that > >> it was too quantitative. > >> > >> There are, of course, some areas of psychology that > >> are well studied as > >> case histories. Recently, I've been looking into > >> suicidology, and in > >> particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered > >> the linguistic > >> analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have > >> been influenced, as > >> early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work > >> on schizophrinia). > >> Now you would think that if ever there was a field > >> that would benefit from > >> total immersion in the individual case, this is one. > >> But Shneidman says > >> that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal > >> phrases, and as a > >> consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively > >> (one of his first > >> studies was simply to sort a pile of real and > >> imitation suicide notes and > >> carefully note the criteria he had when he made > >> correct judgements). And of > >> course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide > >> is that the individual > >> case can be utterly disregarded, since the great > >> variations are > >> sociological and the psychological variables all seem > >> trivial, transient, > >> or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a > >> large scale (as we must > >> these days). Shneidman says he has never read a > >> suicide note he would want > >> to have written. > >> > >> David Kellogg > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden > >> >> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: > >> > >> > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' > >> style of Romantic > >> > Science was his complete immersion in the individual [The entire original message is not included.] From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Sep 7 11:04:25 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 11:04:25 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: References: <55E710F5.2020903@mira.net> <729975170.2722417.1441467957848.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thanks for the summary, Peter. I have pinned the Griffin Quadrant on my study wall. With respect to the sorts of phenomena I study, I believe that the deeper involvement of the analyst in the process s/he is setting out to understand, the better. The highest moments of synthesis/insight are when you can feel the process you are analyzing in real time. Empathy can go a long way, given time, but engagement/entanglement seems to be really helpful, if not essential to the process of ascending to the concrete. This point of view seems to provide real support for all of those who currently are turning to some form of "observant participation" as an appropriate methodology. Among others, David has placed himself in that position more than once, as his data from Korean schools has shown. But if I understand correctly, he views the dimensions as clines. Not sure what that implies in practice. mike On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] < pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu> wrote: > Colleagues, > > I just want to wrap up this thread--and to thank those who responded--by > addressing in turn some of the issues you've raised. > > 1) First of all, regarding the 2 x 2 *Quadrant Thingy* (as Steve Gabosh is > fond of calling it): Like Peg Griffin, I consider it a helpful heuristic > tool. It is useful when comparing one set of binary categories or > dialectical oppositions with another set--an exercise that Steve and I > engaged in with respect to the many dialectical oppositions raised by > Vygotsky's theory. This tool can be applied to any conceptual content, and > therefore has wide utility. But as some of you have pointed out, there are > limits to its usefulness, and sometimes the value lies in amplifying the > contents of a single quadrant. Beyond its use as an analytical lever, > however, I don't think it has much philosophical import. > > 2) Peter S.: Many thanks for your article. I only wish it had been > available when Steve and I were hammering out the characteristics of a > *practical* concept! I appreciate the clarity of your insights into this > phenomenon, which puts more flesh on the bones of this somewhat elusive > concept. In addition, I had not considered the special difficulties posed > by *social* concepts; I've been entirely focused on children's step-by-step > acquisition of the hierarchical structure of language (from words to > phrases to sentences to narratives) and the corresponding step-by-step > development of their conceptual understanding of this hierarchy, and what > this whole process implies about the development from experiential to > logical reasoning. With *social* concepts, you do indeed complicate the > problem of the development of verbal thinking by raising issues that go > beyond achieving mastery at solving well-defined logical problems. Thanks > for bringing all that complication out into the light. > > 3) In the context of the 2 x 2 matrix, Haydi and some others raised the > issue of Ilyenkov's notion of ascending to the level of the concrete. Steve > and I debated this idea and did not come to an agreement about how it maps > out. Personally, I believe the development of verbal thinking in children > begins with the first words in the Concrete-Particular quadrant during the > period of Syncretic conceptual thinking and achieves its most advanced > state (in this current historical period) with the acquisition of narrative > structures in the Abstract-General quadrant corresponding to the period of > *true* concepts. Precisely which quadrant(s) the complexive and > pre-conceptual forms of understanding pass through during development is > still beyond my grasp--although I suspect that the concrete-abstract > qualities of verbal thinking may originate in the speech system, whereas > the particular-general qualities of verbal thinking may originate in the > thinking system, and that each is following a different path while pulling > the other into its orbit. > > In addition to the developmental path of verbal thinking, however, is the > *application* of verbal thinking to practical problems--and that is where I > believe Ilyenkov's notion comes into play. In solving practical problems, > one must *cycle* from the concrete-particular to the abstract-general and > then RETURN to the concrete-particular--where the abstract-general > knowledge thus acquired can be usefully applied. Higher mental functions > are of little value if they are not applied in practice. The activity of > bringing theory back to the realm of practice is how I understand the > notion of *ascending to the concrete*. > > 4) Which brings me full circle: back to Mike's interest in Romantic Science > and the blending of the nomothetic and the idiographic. Luria and Sacks > were both remarkable for their ability to take a concrete, particular case, > consider it from a highly theoretical perspective, and then apply their > theoretical understanding to that case either to perform a diagnosis or > propose a remedial measure. It seems to me that the *integration* of theory > and practice requires a greater understanding than either activity alone. > And I believe that integration is what made both of them such outstanding > scientist/clinicians. > > My two cents! > > Thanks to all. > > Peter F. > > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 11:45 AM, peter jones wrote: > > > Sorry I struggle to keep up...There are clearly contexts in which Hodges' > > model would reduce to emphasize one domain. Can we say the model > collapses > > catastrophically? The obvious example - and a diagnostic one - is an > > individual suffering a sudden collapse and apparent loss of > consciousness. > > The priorities are physical - basic life support - we also need to screen > > the situation, environment lest we become the next casualty. As Peg > points > > out the other panes are still there, but they are relevant, salient, > > in-play at this emergency point in time. As process is followed however > it > > won't be long until questions are asked about next of kin, assuring > dignity > > due to clothing being cut/removed, what does policy say about the > equipment > > used....? > > Thanks to Rafi for the paper by Kieran Healy on 'nuance' which notes: > > It is the act of making?or the call to make?some bit of theory ?richer? > or > > ?moresophisticated? by adding complexity to it, usually by way of some > > additional dimension,level, or aspect, but in the absence of any strong > > means of disciplining or specifyingthe relationship between the new > > elements and the existing ones (p.2). > > > > I'm not sure if the purposes of the model in my studies is assisted (in > > some way?) by seeking to conjoin all academic disciplines (make it > richer) > > and not just sociology, the intersubjective (humanistic)? > > In health (especially) it is essential for tools to be evidence based > (and > > yet this too is another debate). Hodges' model isn't a theory and I think > > some people dismiss it as simplistic based on the 2x2 structure. > > Hodges' is concerned with what kind of domain knowledge is needed to > solve > > a problem, pose a question, well formed argument... at a certain point in > > time (context). The structure of the model arises from questions of 'who' > > (individual OR group); and the types of things (humanistic-mechanistic) > > that healthcare workers then do for said individual's - groups. > > In the Romantic Science sense is Hodges' model a series of (potential) > > conceptual spaces that as a whole is pantological? > > Of these nuance traps, Sociology has historically been most prone to the > > nuanceof the conceptual framework (Rule 1997, Chapter 4) (p.3). > > > > Must look up Rule. This is interesting too as 'holism' (and with it > > Romantic Science?) as in (w)holistic - integrated care is often dismissed > > as a crystal-faced light-reflecting-refracting fad. > > Peter Jones > > @h2cm > > > > > > From: Andy Blunden > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Sent: Wednesday, 2 September 2015, 16:08 > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > So this is a diagnostic tool, Peg? > > Could you spell this out a little more for someone who still > > doesn't grasp what you are talking about? :) > > andy > > intrigued. > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > On 3/09/2015 12:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > > > What I did not make clear is that the JoHari window is not really the > > same as a matrix. It is a different kind of tool than I think David and > > Peter are thinking about. > > > Here's the trick: You change the pane sizes to emphasize the one of the > > four panes you are currently acting on -- but all four panes are always > > there. > > > So you can make the "concrete specific" pane HUGE by moving the top > > bottom inner divider far to the right and moving the left right inner > > divider far to the bottom. Or you can move only one of the dividers. > And > > you can move the dividers without such extremes. > > > > > > Even if a diagnosis/treatment only does the first move I described, > > there's little abstract involved. I don't mind that so much if the > actors > > are involved in an emergency triage activity, but without the abstract > you > > are going on observables very influenced by perceptual and cultural > access > > of the actors and you might not even have the most useful template from > the > > general to guide/evaluate your trials and errors. So you'd better shift > > the panes pretty soon before things get way off base. > > > > > > You can also fool around with the arrangement of the terms that name > the > > panes: Do you get more out of concrete vs. specific or more out of > > specific vs. concrete (in David's terms the anchors for the cline). Same > > for abstract vs. concrete or concrete vs. abstract. > > > PG > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Peg > > Griffin > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:55 PM > > > To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > > As far as I understand those terms (nomothetic and idiographic), the > > combined motor method does unite them and so arrives at dual stimulation, > > given the non-accidental mosaic. > > > But I don't know that my understanding goes far enough or too far! > > > Peg > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike > > cole > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:08 PM > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > > > Is that simultaneously uniting the nomothetic and idiographic, Peg? > That > > is the way Luria talked about it. > > > mike > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Peg Griffin > > wrote: > > > > > >> Just in a short-hand: > > >> > > >> Concrete Specific: Zasetsky (The man with the shattered world) > > >> > > >> Concrete General: People with traumatic brain injury during WWII > > >> > > >> Abstract General: Brain is a mosaic of specific domains with actions > > >> that interact in dual stimulations (not pure will) > > >> > > >> Abstract Specific: A man acts to recall using images; it fails on a > > >> certain target. The man starts appears to abandon the recall by > > >> acting an intimately related system ? e.g., reciting the alphabet. > > >> But the recital is ?interrupted? when it bumps into the original > > >> recall target and the recall is successful. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> For diagnosis and/or treatment, we must rise to the concrete specific. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Sorry I don?t have time to develop this further but I am sure many on > > >> this list do, and I know that Luria and Sacks did so in wondrous and > > >> glorious instances. > > >> > > >> Peg > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net] > > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:21 AM > > >> To: Peg Griffin; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > > >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Could you give an example, Peg? > > >> andy > > >> > > >> _____ > > >> > > >> *Andy Blunden* > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > >> > > >> On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > > >> > > >> What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and Sachs ? > > >> with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made (based > > >> on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and Harrington > > >> Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill in each of the > > four cells in > > >> the square about an issue of interest. It helps me think about > > >> genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. > > >> Concrete Abstract > > >> Specific > > >> General > > >> > > >> A romantic square, > > >> Peg > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > >> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rod > > >> Parker-Rees > > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM > > >> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > >> > > >> Thanks for posting this, Andy. > > >> > > >> I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his > > >> reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his observation > > >> that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event isolated > > >> from other things or events. Its real object is to see and understand > > >> the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'. > > >> > > >> We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or less) > > >> on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but our > > >> communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using these > > >> categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of science > > >> but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use of > > >> language and more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The > > >> romantic focus on an 'individual' can only ever be conducted in the > > >> medium of a very un-individual language and no person's life could > > >> possibly be understood without reference to relationships with other > > >> persons which then spread roots and branches out to a forest of > > connections, causes and consequences. > > >> > > >> David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of theory if > > >> one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case and > > >> Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the > > >> concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but the > > >> creative sources of great historical events and the important ideas > > >> and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the contribution > > >> individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than themselves > > >> but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want neither to split > > >> living reality into its elementary components nor to represent the > > >> wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that lose the > > properties of the phenomena themselves'. > > >> > > >> I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is > > >> particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how all > > >> minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' > > >> lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory > > >> associations which words bring with them in a way which, for most of > > >> us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a > > >> particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that every > > >> person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, > > >> behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface of a > > >> pool of connections and associations which can never be shared with or > > >> known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can only > > >> go so far in understanding another person's understanding and much > > >> less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone is a > > >> very different thing from being able to share that knowledge in a > > >> rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of the > > >> spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge is > > >> entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that swirl > > beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! > > >> > > >> I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what lies > > >> beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young children > > >> are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so powerfully > > >> dominated by abstractions. > > >> > > >> All the best, > > >> > > >> Rod > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees= > plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >> ] > > >> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > > >> Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > >> > > >> Try this, in Word this time. > > >> Andy > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >> *Andy Blunden* > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > >> On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: > > >> > > >> ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the > > >> chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST be > > >> somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. > > >> > > >> After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas seems > > >> appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended essay's > > >> on his view of Romantic Science. > > >> > > >> It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, were > > >> not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of their > > >> enterprise encompassed those fields and more. > > >> > > >> Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual case in > > >> no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their work. > > >> Nor does Luria argue so. > > >> > > >> mike > > >> ? > > >> > > >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg > >> > wrote: > > >> > > >> I think the problem with this view of romantic science > > >> is that it > > >> completely precludes building a psychology on a > > >> sociology. In that sense > > >> (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist > > >> at all. Vygotsky > > >> certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the > > >> individual case"; such > > >> an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of > > >> theory. I'm not sure > > >> Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a > > >> Shattered Mind" and > > >> "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. > > >> Remember the main > > >> criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human > > >> Conflicts" was always that > > >> it was too quantitative. > > >> > > >> There are, of course, some areas of psychology that > > >> are well studied as > > >> case histories. Recently, I've been looking into > > >> suicidology, and in > > >> particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered > > >> the linguistic > > >> analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have > > >> been influenced, as > > >> early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work > > >> on schizophrinia). > > >> Now you would think that if ever there was a field > > >> that would benefit from > > >> total immersion in the individual case, this is one. > > >> But Shneidman says > > >> that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal > > >> phrases, and as a > > >> consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively > > >> (one of his first > > >> studies was simply to sort a pile of real and > > >> imitation suicide notes and > > >> carefully note the criteria he had when he made > > >> correct judgements). And of > > >> course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide > > >> is that the individual > > >> case can be utterly disregarded, since the great > > >> variations are > > >> sociological and the psychological variables all seem > > >> trivial, transient, > > >> or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a > > >> large scale (as we must > > >> these days). Shneidman says he has never read a > > >> suicide note he would want > > >> to have written. > > >> > > >> David Kellogg > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden > > >> > >> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: > > >> > > >> > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' > > >> style of Romantic > > >> > Science was his complete immersion in the individual > > >> case before him, and > > >> > development of a science of complete persons. The > > >> paradigm of this type of > > >> > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative > > >> Science" I suppose. The > > >> > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each > > >> case, e.g. facial > > >> > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a > > >> "covering law" for just this > > >> > aspect. > > >> > Andy > > >> > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >> > *Andy Blunden* > > >> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > >> < > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/> > > >> > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> Mike, > > >> >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that > > >> naysayers were cited in > > >> >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering > > >> if some of that push back > > >> >> was related to his practice of romantic science, > > >> which, if I understand > > >> >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in > > >> the phenomena of > > >> >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, > > >> for example, immersed > > >> >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His > > >> writing prefigures the cell > > >> >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of > > >> microscopes could not confirm > > >> >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner > > >> and Sacks makes me > > >> >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at > > >> issue. Different styles > > >> >> of research bring different construals. This may be > > >> the bane of > > >> >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really > > >> make Sacks less of a > > >> >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? > > >> >> Henry > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole > > >> >> > > >> wrote: > > >> >>> > > >> >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our > > >> connections with Luria and > > >> >>> the fact that we > > >> >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a > > >> romantic science. He was a > > >> >>> shy > > >> >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, > > >> and the difference > > >> >>> between > > >> >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the > > >> interview with them that > > >> >>> someone > > >> >>> pirated on > > >> >>> to youtube. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, > > >> engaging intellectually all > > >> >>> the while. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> mike > > >> >>> > > >> >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin > > >> > >> martinl@azscience.org>> > > >> >>> wrote: > > >> >>> > > >> >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the > > >> privilege of spending an > > >> >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting > > >> Jerry Bruner and Carol > > >> >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in for Sylvia who > > >> couldn't make the dinner - it > > >> >>>> was > > >> >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you > > >> ever hear from Bruner? I > > >> >>>> wonder if he's still active. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Laura > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Sent from my iPad > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole > > >> >> > > >> wrote: > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Dear Colleagues --- > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news > > >> that Oliver Sacks has > > >> >>>> succumbed to cancer. > > >> >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. > > >> >>>> mike > > >> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM > > >> >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; > > >> Neurologist and Author > > >> >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks > > >> >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com > > >> lchcmike@gmail.com> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com > > >> : > > >> Oliver Sacks Dies at > > >> 82; Neurologist > > >> >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks > > >> >>>> < > > >> >>>> > > >> > > >> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > >> a < > > >> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > >> a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 > > >> 972441657668®i_id=0> > > >> > > > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > > >> >>>> By > > >> >>>> GREGORY COWLES > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest > > >> pathways in > > >> >>>> best-selling > > >> >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife > > >> for a Hat,? achieving > > >> >>>> a > > >> >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. > > >> >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: > > >> http://nyti.ms/1LL040D > > >> >>>> < > > >> >>>> > > >> > > >> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > >> a < > > >> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > > >> a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 > > >> 972441657668®i_id=0> > > >> > > > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > > >> >>>> To > > >> >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times > > >> articles, subscribe today. > > >> >>>> See > > >> >>>> Subscription Options. > > >> >>>> < > > >> >>>> > > >> > > >> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC > > >> IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP > > >> AvEGfk= > > >> < > > >> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC > > >> IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP > > >> AvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_i > > >> d=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > > >> > > > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > > >> >>>> To > > >> >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add > > >> nytdirect@nytimes.com > >> nytdirect@nytimes.com> > > >> to your > > >> >>>> address book. Advertisement > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> < > > >> >>>> > > >> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto < > > >> > http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secu > > >> > re.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn > > >> 1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=Mis > > >> tressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistr > > >> essamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview> > > >> &opzn&page= > > >> > > > secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> Copyright 2015 > > >> >>>> < > > >> >>>> > > >> > > >> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP > > >> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ== > > >> < > > >> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP > > >> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31 > > >> 502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668&r > > >> egi_id=0> > > >> > > > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> | The New York Times Company > > >> >>>> < > > >> >>>> > > >> > > >> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcS > > >> h < > > >> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcS > > >> h&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 > > >> 972441657668®i_id=0> > > >> > > > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> -- > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a > > >> natural science with an > > >> >>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>> -- > > >> >>> > > >> >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a > > >> natural science with an > > >> >>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > >> >>> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> > > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > > >> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ________________________________ > > >> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] < > > >> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> < > > >> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > > >> > > >> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely > > >> for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not > > >> the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the > > >> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely > on > > it. > > >> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know > > >> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not > > >> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University > > >> accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to > > >> scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept > > >> responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this > > >> email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services > > >> unless accompanied by an official order form. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. > Director, > Office of Institutional Research > < > http://www.fordham.edu/academics/office_of_the_provos/office_of_institutio/index.asp > > > Fordham University > Thebaud Hall-202 > Bronx, NY 10458 > > Phone: (718) 817-2243 > Fax: (718) 817-3817 > email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From haydizulfei@rocketmail.com Mon Sep 7 11:21:18 2015 From: haydizulfei@rocketmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=AAHaydi_Zulfei=E2=80=AC_=E2=80=AA?=) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 18:21:18 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <462311273.3989356.1441650078355.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Peter, Thanks a lot ! And congratulate this happy ending ! It was a very good event . I learnt from it .? Cheers ! Haydi From: Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Monday, 7 September 2015, 21:43:54 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science Colleagues, I just want to wrap up this thread--and to thank those who responded--by addressing in turn some of the issues you've raised. 1) First of all, regarding the 2 x 2 *Quadrant Thingy* (as Steve Gabosh is fond of calling it):? Like Peg Griffin, I consider it a helpful heuristic tool. It is useful when comparing one set of binary categories or dialectical oppositions with another set--an exercise that Steve and I engaged in with respect to the many dialectical oppositions raised by Vygotsky's theory. This tool can be applied to any conceptual content, and therefore has wide utility. But as some of you have pointed out, there are limits to its usefulness, and sometimes the value lies in amplifying the contents of a single quadrant. Beyond its use as an analytical lever, however, I don't think it has much philosophical import. 2) Peter S.: Many thanks for your article. I only wish it had been available when Steve and I were hammering out the characteristics of a *practical* concept! I appreciate the clarity of your insights into this phenomenon, which puts more flesh on the bones of this somewhat elusive concept. In addition, I had not considered the special difficulties posed by *social* concepts; I've been entirely focused on children's step-by-step acquisition of the hierarchical structure of language (from words to phrases to sentences to narratives) and the corresponding step-by-step development of their conceptual understanding of this hierarchy, and what this whole process implies about the development from experiential to logical reasoning. With *social* concepts, you do indeed complicate the problem of the development of verbal thinking by raising issues that go beyond achieving mastery at solving well-defined logical problems. Thanks for bringing all that complication out into the light. 3) In the context of the 2 x 2 matrix, Haydi and some others raised the issue of Ilyenkov's notion of ascending to the level of the concrete. Steve and I debated this idea and did not come to an agreement about how it maps out. Personally, I believe the development of verbal thinking in children begins with the first words in the Concrete-Particular quadrant during the period of Syncretic conceptual thinking and achieves its most advanced state (in this current historical period) with the acquisition of narrative structures in the Abstract-General quadrant corresponding to the period of *true* concepts. Precisely which quadrant(s) the complexive and pre-conceptual forms of understanding pass through during development is still beyond my grasp--although I suspect that the concrete-abstract qualities of verbal thinking may originate in the speech system, whereas the particular-general qualities of verbal thinking may originate in the thinking system, and that each is following a different path while pulling the other into its orbit. In addition to the developmental path of verbal thinking, however, is the *application* of verbal thinking to practical problems--and that is where I believe Ilyenkov's notion comes into play. In solving practical problems, one must *cycle* from the concrete-particular to the abstract-general and then RETURN to the concrete-particular--where the abstract-general knowledge thus acquired can be usefully applied. Higher mental functions are of little value if they are not applied in practice. The activity of bringing theory back to the realm of practice is how I understand the notion of *ascending to the concrete*. 4) Which brings me full circle: back to Mike's interest in Romantic Science and the blending of the nomothetic and the idiographic. Luria and Sacks were both remarkable for their ability to take a concrete, particular case, consider it from a highly theoretical perspective, and then apply their theoretical understanding to that case either to perform a diagnosis or propose a remedial measure. It seems to me that the *integration* of theory and practice requires a greater understanding than either activity alone. And I believe that integration is what made both of them such outstanding scientist/clinicians. My two cents! Thanks to all. Peter F. On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 11:45 AM, peter jones wrote: > Sorry I struggle to keep up...There are clearly contexts in which Hodges' > model would reduce to emphasize one domain. Can we say the model collapses > catastrophically? The obvious example - and a diagnostic one - is an > individual suffering a sudden collapse and apparent loss of consciousness. > The priorities are physical - basic life support - we also need to screen > the situation, environment lest we become the next casualty. As Peg points > out the other panes are still there, but they are relevant, salient, > in-play at this emergency point in time. As process is followed however it > won't be long until questions are asked about next of kin, assuring dignity > due to clothing being cut/removed, what does policy say about the equipment > used....? > Thanks to Rafi? for the paper by Kieran Healy on 'nuance' which notes: > It is the act of making?or the call to make?some bit of theory ?richer? or > ?moresophisticated? by adding complexity to it, usually by way of some > additional dimension,level, or aspect, but in the absence of any strong > means of disciplining or specifyingthe relationship between the new > elements and the existing ones (p.2). > > I'm not sure if the purposes of the model in my studies is assisted (in > some way?) by seeking to conjoin all academic disciplines (make it richer) > and not just sociology, the intersubjective (humanistic)? > In health (especially) it is essential for tools to be evidence based (and > yet this too is another debate). Hodges' model isn't a theory and I think > some people dismiss it as simplistic based on the 2x2 structure. > Hodges' is concerned with what kind of domain knowledge is needed to solve > a problem, pose a question, well formed argument... at a certain point in > time (context). The structure of the model arises from questions of 'who' > (individual OR group); and the types of things (humanistic-mechanistic) > that healthcare workers then do for said individual's - groups. > In the Romantic Science sense is Hodges' model a series of (potential) > conceptual spaces that as a whole is pantological? > Of these nuance traps, Sociology has historically been most prone to the > nuanceof the conceptual framework (Rule 1997, Chapter 4) (p.3). > > Must look up Rule. This is interesting too as 'holism' (and with it > Romantic Science?) as in (w)holistic - integrated care is often dismissed > as a crystal-faced light-reflecting-refracting fad. > Peter Jones > @h2cm > > >? ? ? From: Andy Blunden >? To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >? Sent: Wednesday, 2 September 2015, 16:08 >? Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > So this is a diagnostic tool, Peg? > Could you spell this out a little more for someone who still > doesn't grasp what you are talking about? :) > andy > intrigued. > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 3/09/2015 12:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > > What I did not make clear is that the JoHari window is not really the > same as a matrix.? It is a different kind of tool than I think David and > Peter are thinking about. > > Here's the trick: You change the pane sizes to emphasize the one of the > four panes you are currently acting on -- but all four panes are always > there. > > So you can make the "concrete specific" pane HUGE by moving the top > bottom inner divider far to the right and moving the left right inner > divider far to the bottom.? Or you can move only one of the? dividers.? And > you can move the dividers without such extremes. > > > > Even if a diagnosis/treatment only does the first move I described, > there's little abstract involved.? I don't mind that so much if the actors > are involved in an emergency triage activity, but without the abstract you > are going on observables very influenced by perceptual and cultural access > of the actors and you might not even have the most useful template from the > general to guide/evaluate your trials and errors.? So you'd better shift > the panes pretty soon before things get way off base. > > > > You can also fool around with the arrangement of the terms that name the > panes:? Do you get more out of concrete vs. specific or more out of > specific vs. concrete (in David's terms the anchors for the cline).? Same > for abstract vs. concrete or concrete vs. abstract. > > PG > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Peg > Griffin > > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:55 PM > > To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > As far as I understand those terms (nomothetic and idiographic), the > combined motor method does unite them and so arrives at dual stimulation, > given the non-accidental mosaic. > > But I don't know that my understanding goes far enough or too far! > > Peg > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike > cole > > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:08 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > > > > Is that simultaneously uniting the nomothetic and idiographic, Peg? That > is the way Luria talked about it. > > mike > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Peg Griffin > wrote: > > > >> Just in a short-hand: > >> > >> Concrete Specific:? Zasetsky (The man with the shattered world) > >> > >> Concrete General: People with traumatic brain injury during WWII > >> > >> Abstract General: Brain is a mosaic of specific domains with actions > >> that interact in dual stimulations (not pure will) > >> > >> Abstract Specific:? A man acts to recall using images; it fails on a > >> certain target.? The man starts appears to abandon the recall by > >> acting an intimately related system ? e.g., reciting the alphabet. > >> But the recital is ?interrupted? when it bumps into the original > >> recall target and the recall is successful. > >> > >> > >> > >> For diagnosis and/or treatment, we must rise to the concrete specific. > >> > >> > >> > >> Sorry I don?t have time to develop this further but I am sure many on > >> this list do, and I know that Luria and Sacks did so in wondrous and > >> glorious instances. > >> > >> Peg > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net] > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:21 AM > >> To: Peg Griffin; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity' > >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > >> > >> > >> > >> Could you give an example, Peg? > >> andy > >> > >>? ? _____ > >> > >> *Andy Blunden* > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > >> > >> On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > >> > >> What has always helped me ? and helps me appreciate Luria and Sachs ? > >> with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made (based > >> on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and Harrington > >> Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill in each of the > four cells in > >> the square about an issue of interest.? It helps me think about > >> genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too. > >>? ? Concrete? ? ? Abstract > >> Specific > >> General > >> > >> A romantic square, > >> Peg > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > >> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rod > >> Parker-Rees > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM > >> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > >> > >> Thanks for posting this, Andy. > >> > >> I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his > >> reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his observation > >> that 'The eye of science does not probe ?a thing,? an event isolated > >> from other things or events. Its real object is to see and understand > >> the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'. > >> > >> We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or less) > >> on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but our > >> communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using these > >> categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of science > >> but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use of > >> language and more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The > >> romantic focus on an 'individual' can only ever be conducted in the > >> medium of a very un-individual language and no person's life could > >> possibly be understood without reference to relationships with other > >> persons which then spread roots and branches out to a forest of > connections, causes and consequences. > >> > >> David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of theory if > >> one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case and > >> Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the > >> concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but the > >> creative sources of great historical events and the important ideas > >> and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the contribution > >> individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than themselves > >> but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want neither to split > >> living reality into its elementary components nor to represent the > >> wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that lose the > properties of the phenomena themselves'. > >> > >> I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is > >> particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how all > >> minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set' > >> lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory > >> associations which words bring with them in a way which, for most of > >> us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a > >> particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that every > >> person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures, > >> behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface of a > >> pool of connections and associations which can never be shared with or > >> known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can only > >> go so far in understanding another person's understanding and much > >> less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone is a > >> very different thing from being able to share that knowledge in a > >> rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of the > >> spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge is > >> entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that swirl > beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories! > >> > >> I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what lies > >> beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young children > >> are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so powerfully > >> dominated by abstractions. > >> > >> All the best, > >> > >> Rod > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> ] > >> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > >> Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17 > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science > >> > >> Try this, in Word this time. > >> Andy > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> *Andy Blunden* > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > >> On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote: > >> > >> ?It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the > >> chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST be > >> somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one. > >> > >> After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas seems > >> appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended essay's > >> on his view of Romantic Science. > >> > >> It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were, were > >> not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of their > >> enterprise encompassed those fields and more. > >> > >> Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual case in > >> no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their work. > >> Nor does Luria argue so. > >> > >> mike > >> ? > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg >> > wrote: > >> > >>? ? ? I think the problem with this view of romantic science > >>? ? ? is that it > >>? ? ? completely precludes building a psychology on a > >>? ? ? sociology. In that sense > >>? ? ? (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist > >>? ? ? at all. Vygotsky > >>? ? ? certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the > >>? ? ? individual case"; such > >>? ? ? an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of > >>? ? ? theory. I'm not sure > >>? ? ? Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a > >>? ? ? Shattered Mind" and > >>? ? ? "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions. > >>? ? ? Remember the main > >>? ? ? criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human > >>? ? ? Conflicts" was always that > >>? ? ? it was too quantitative. > >> > >>? ? ? There are, of course, some areas of psychology that > >>? ? ? are well studied as > >>? ? ? case histories. Recently, I've been looking into > >>? ? ? suicidology, and in > >>? ? ? particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered > >>? ? ? the linguistic > >>? ? ? analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have > >>? ? ? been influenced, as > >>? ? ? early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work > >>? ? ? on schizophrinia). > >>? ? ? Now you would think that if ever there was a field > >>? ? ? that would benefit from > >>? ? ? total immersion in the individual case, this is one. > >>? ? ? But Shneidman says > >>? ? ? that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal > >>? ? ? phrases, and as a > >>? ? ? consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively > >>? ? ? (one of his first > >>? ? ? studies was simply to sort a pile of real and > >>? ? ? imitation suicide notes and > >>? ? ? carefully note the criteria he had when he made > >>? ? ? correct judgements). And of > >>? ? ? course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide > >>? ? ? is that the individual > >>? ? ? case can be utterly disregarded, since the great > >>? ? ? variations are > >>? ? ? sociological and the psychological variables all seem > >>? ? ? trivial, transient, > >>? ? ? or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a > >>? ? ? large scale (as we must > >>? ? ? these days). Shneidman says he has never read a > >>? ? ? suicide note he would want > >>? ? ? to have written. > >> > >>? ? ? David Kellogg > >> > >> > >> > >>? ? ? On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden > >>? ? ? >> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: > >> > >>? ? ? > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks' > >>? ? ? style of Romantic > >>? ? ? > Science was his complete immersion in the individual > >>? ? ? case before him, and > >>? ? ? > development of a science of complete persons. The > >>? ? ? paradigm of this type of > >>? ? ? > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative > >>? ? ? Science" I suppose. The > >>? ? ? > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each > >>? ? ? case, e.g. facial > >>? ? ? > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a > >>? ? ? "covering law" for just this > >>? ? ? > aspect. > >>? ? ? > Andy > >>? ? ? > > >>? ? ? ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>? ? ? > *Andy Blunden* > >>? ? ? > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > >>? ? ? < > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/> > >>? ? ? > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > >>? ? ? > > >>? ? ? >> Mike, > >>? ? ? >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that > >>? ? ? naysayers were cited in > >>? ? ? >> reviewing Oliver Sacks? life work. I am wondering > >>? ? ? if some of that push back > >>? ? ? >> was related to his practice of romantic science, > >>? ? ? which, if I understand > >>? ? ? >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in > >>? ? ? the phenomena of > >>? ? ? >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe, > >>? ? ? for example, immersed > >>? ? ? >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His > >>? ? ? writing prefigures the cell > >>? ? ? >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of > >>? ? ? microscopes could not confirm > >>? ? ? >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner > >>? ? ? and Sacks makes me > >>? ? ? >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at > >>? ? ? issue. Different styles > >>? ? ? >> of research bring different construals. This may be > >>? ? ? the bane of > >>? ? ? >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really > >>? ? ? make Sacks less of a > >>? ? ? >> researcher and just a lowly clinician? > >>? ? ? >> Henry > >>? ? ? >> > >>? ? ? >> > >>? ? ? >> > >>? ? ? >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole > >>? ? ? > > >> wrote: > >>? ? ? >>> > >>? ? ? >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our > >>? ? ? connections with Luria and > >>? ? ? >>> the fact that we > >>? ? ? >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a > >>? ? ? romantic science. He was a > >>? ? ? >>> shy > >>? ? ? >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling, > >>? ? ? and the difference > >>? ? ? >>> between > >>? ? ? >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the > >>? ? ? interview with them that > >>? ? ? >>> someone > >>? ? ? >>> pirated on > >>? ? ? >>> to youtube. > >>? ? ? >>> > >>? ? ? >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me, > >>? ? ? engaging intellectually all > >>? ? ? >>> the while. > >>? ? ? >>> > >>? ? ? >>> mike > >>? ? ? >>> > >>? ? ? >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin > >>? ? ? >> martinl@azscience.org>> > >>? ? ? >>> wrote: > >>? ? ? >>> > >>? ? ? >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the > >>? ? ? privilege of spending an > >>? ? ? >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting > >>? ? ? Jerry Bruner and Carol > >>? ? ? >>>> Feldman in NY.? I stood in for Sylvia who > >>? ? ? couldn't make the dinner - it > >>? ? ? >>>> was > >>? ? ? >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you > >>? ? ? ever hear from Bruner? I > >>? ? ? >>>> wonder if he's still active. > >>? ? ? >>>> > >>? ? ? >>>> Laura > >>? ? ? >>>> > >>? ? ? >>>> > >>? ? ? >>>> Sent from my iPad > >>? ? ? >>>> > >>? ? ? >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole > >>? ? ? > > >> wrote: > >>? ? ? >>>> > >>? ? ? >>>> Dear Colleagues --- > >>? ? ? >>>> > >>? ? ? >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news > >>? ? ? that Oliver Sacks has > >>? ? ? >>>> succumbed to cancer. > >>? ? ? >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed. > >>? ? ? >>>> mike > >>? ? ? >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>? ? ? >>>> > >>? ? ? >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM > >>? ? ? >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82; > >>? ? ? Neurologist and Author > >>? ? ? >>>> Explored the Brain?s Quirks > >>? ? ? >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com? >> lchcmike@gmail.com> > >>? ? ? >>>> > >>? ? ? >>>> > >>? ? ? >>>>? Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com > >>? ? ? : > >> Oliver Sacks Dies at > >>? ? ? 82; Neurologist > >>? ? ? >>>> and Author Explored the Brain?s Quirks > >>? ? ? >>>> < > >>? ? ? >>>> > >> > >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > >> a < > >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > >> a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 > >> 972441657668®i_id=0> > >> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >>? ? ? >>>> By > >>? ? ? >>>> GREGORY COWLES > >>? ? ? >>>> > >>? ? ? >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain?s strangest > >>? ? ? pathways in > >>? ? ? >>>> best-selling > >>? ? ? >>>> case histories like ?The Man Who Mistook His Wife > >>? ? ? for a Hat,? achieving > >>? ? ? >>>> a > >>? ? ? >>>> level of renown rare among scientists. > >>? ? ? >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: > >>? ? ? http://nyti.ms/1LL040D > >>? ? ? >>>> < > >>? ? ? >>>> > >> > >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > >> a < > >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4 > >> a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 > >> 972441657668®i_id=0> > >> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >>? ? ? >>>> To > >>? ? ? >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times > >>? ? ? articles, subscribe today. > >>? ? ? >>>> See > >>? ? ? >>>> Subscription Options. > >>? ? ? >>>> < > >>? ? ? >>>> > >> > >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC > >> IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP > >> AvEGfk= > >> < > >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC > >> IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP > >> AvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_i > >> d=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0> > >>? ? ? >>>> To > >>? ? ? >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add > >>? ? ? nytdirect@nytimes.com? >> nytdirect@nytimes.com> > >>? ? ? to your > >>? ? ? >>>> address book. Advertisement > >>? ? ? >>>> > >>? ? ? >>>> < > >>? ? ? >>>> > >>? ? ? http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto < > >> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secu > >> re.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn > >> 1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=Mis > >> tressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistr > >> essamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview> > >> &opzn&page= > >> > secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview > >>? ? ? >>>> > > >>? ? ? >>>> Copyright 2015 > >>? ? ? >>>> < > >>? ? ? >>>> > >> > >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP > >> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ== > >> < > >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP > >> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31 > >> 502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668&r > >> egi_id=0> > >> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 > >>? ? ? >>>> > > >>? ? ? >>>> | The New York Times Company > >>? ? ? >>>> < > >>? ? ? >>>> > >> > >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcS > >> h < > >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcS > >> h&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440 > >> 972441657668®i_id=0> > >> > &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0 > >>? ? ? >>>> > > >>? ? ? >>>> | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 > >>? ? ? >>>> > >>? ? ? >>>> > >>? ? ? >>>> > >>? ? ? >>>> > >>? ? ? >>>> > >>? ? ? >>>> -- > >>? ? ? >>>> > >>? ? ? >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a > >>? ? ? natural science with an > >>? ? ? >>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >>? ? ? >>>> > >>? ? ? >>>> > >>? ? ? >>>> > >>? ? ? >>>> > >>? ? ? >>> -- > >>? ? ? >>> > >>? ? ? >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a > >>? ? ? natural science with an > >>? ? ? >>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >>? ? ? >>> > >>? ? ? >> > >>? ? ? >> > >>? ? ? >> > >>? ? ? > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > >> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] < > >> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> < > >> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> > >> > >> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely > >> for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not > >> the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the > >> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on > it. > >> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know > >> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not > >> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University > >> accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to > >> scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept > >> responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this > >> email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services > >> unless accompanied by an official order form. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D. Director, Office of Institutional Research Fordham University Thebaud Hall-202 Bronx, NY 10458 Phone: (718) 817-2243 Fax: (718) 817-3817 email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Sep 7 12:20:01 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 12:20:01 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Dynamics of Developmental Change Message-ID: I have been trying to think of a way to more concretely engage David's developmental domainsxstages table. One of David's stage margins is at 3 months and there is ample reason for arguing for the existence a stage shift in development at this time. (My wife and I wrote about it in just this way in our textbook). However, there is also a lot of interesting, newer, evidence showing the cultural-historical contingency of the changes that underpinned the developmental literature for several decades. I thought that perhaps this example, since it is pretty well worked out, might help us get at the issues David raised. I believe this work could usefully be related to notions of zopeds, but am not sure. This rather long fragment is taken from a recent article that Martin and I wrote. mike (For this one, not only Boesch but Waddington are apt: The latter having written that every new level of development implies a new, relevant, context.) It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: socialsmile.doc Type: application/msword Size: 33280 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150907/ef32562d/attachment.doc From smago@uga.edu Tue Sep 8 08:54:35 2015 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:54:35 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] JoLLE Conference Call for Submissions Message-ID: Please consider submitting a proposal! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JoLLE2015 Call for Conference Proposals .pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 564980 bytes Desc: JoLLE2015 Call for Conference Proposals .pdf Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150908/53f13020/attachment.pdf From Peg.Griffin@att.net Tue Sep 8 09:07:56 2015 From: Peg.Griffin@att.net (Peg Griffin) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 12:07:56 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001e01d0ea50$87179fa0$9546dee0$@att.net> Thank you, Mike -- and Martin and Sheila! Good material to think with and a nudge to look again at Barbara Means' baby reports. Tangentially, you know those strollers for babies that are reversible -- the reclining baby can be looking toward the person pushing the stroller or with a switch the baby can be looking at the same world the pusher sees? Maybe different affordances for proto-conversations within one wider culture (don't know of any studies) and possible mini-impacts on developments like smiling? Peg -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole Sent: Monday, September 07, 2015 3:20 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Dynamics of Developmental Change I have been trying to think of a way to more concretely engage David's developmental domainsxstages table. One of David's stage margins is at 3 months and there is ample reason for arguing for the existence a stage shift in development at this time. (My wife and I wrote about it in just this way in our textbook). However, there is also a lot of interesting, newer, evidence showing the cultural-historical contingency of the changes that underpinned the developmental literature for several decades. I thought that perhaps this example, since it is pretty well worked out, might help us get at the issues David raised. I believe this work could usefully be related to notions of zopeds, but am not sure. This rather long fragment is taken from a recent article that Martin and I wrote. mike (For this one, not only Boesch but Waddington are apt: The latter having written that every new level of development implies a new, relevant, context.) It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Sep 8 09:35:14 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 09:35:14 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Call for Papers: Community Psychology in Global Perspective - Special Issue on Structural Violence In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Of possible interest to xmca-o-phytes mike ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dutta, Urmitapa Date: Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 8:11 PM Subject: Call for Papers: Community Psychology in Global Perspective - Special Issue on Structural Violence To: QUAL@listserv.temple.edu Dear Colleagues, The online journal *Community Psychology in Global Perspective *invites submissions for a special issue titled, *Structural Violence and Community-based Research and Action. *We encourage papers from scholars, educators, practitioners, and activists engaging with and/or interrogating community-based action and research through the lens of structural violence. The deadline for submission of manuscripts is *January 15, 2016*. http://siba-ese.unisalento.it/index.php/cpgp/announcement/view/44 Please see below and attachments for more information on the special issue. Best, Urmi on behalf of Christopher Sonn M. Brinton Lykes ? *Urmitapa Dutta, Ph.D.* http://www.urmitapadutta.com Assistant Professor of Psychology University of Massachusetts Lowell Phone: 978-934-2227 *********************************** Call for Papers: Structural Violence and Community-based Research and Action Important Dates *January 15, 2016:* Deadline for paper submission Editors Urmitapa Dutta, University of Massachusetts Lowell, USA. Christopher Sonn, Victoria University, Australia. M. Brinton Lykes, Boston College, USA. Theme of the Special Issue Structural violence refers to the production and maintenance of social inequality and oppression. The concept signifies the mechanisms through which social systems produce and normalize exclusion and marginalization along lines of race, class, gender, ethnicity, nationality, and other invidious categories (Galtung, 1969; Farmer, 1996; Martin-Bar?, 1994; Scheper-Hughes, 2006). Structural violence erases social and political origins of problems, instead placing the blame on struggling individuals and communities. Examples include racism, sexism, poverty, hunger, and health disparities. Structural violence is intricately tied to symbolic or cultural violence, that is, systematic assaults on the human dignity and self-worth of individuals and communities. This kind of violence operates through aspects of the symbolic sphere such as culture, language, ideology, and empirical science to legitimize direct violence (Bourdieu, 1991; Galtung, 1990). Structural and symbolic violence systematically violate individual, economic, social, and cultural rights through exploitation, abuse, and epistemic violence built into institutional, cultural, and research practices. Conceptions of structural violence can challenge community-based praxis to incorporate sophisticated analyses of injustice. The special issue on *Structural Violence* *and Community-based Research and Action *explores these possibilities through critical interrogations of diverse forms of structural and symbolic violence. We invite papers that draw on diverse theoretical and methodological approaches to offer theoretical, empirical, and/or practice-based insights into structural violence and how it operates and/or is performed in communities. In particular, we seek contributions that move beyond positivist and postpositivist understandings of ?scientific? research, to excavate the manifold ways in which structural violence is deeply ingrained in our society including the academy. We encourage papers from scholars, educators, practitioners, and activists engaging with and/or interrogating community-based action and research through the lens of structural violence. We seek contributions, in particular from the global south, which contribute to a critical, international activist scholarship on community-based research and practice. The following list presents some illustrative topics for possible contributions: - Study of both individual experiences and the macrosocial matrix in which experiences are configured. - Illustration of mechanisms through which macrosocial forces translate into individual/everyday suffering. - Theoretical and empirical examination of how intersecting social axes are implicated in forms of social injustice. - Study of contexts and social formations that produce violence. - Interventions (theory and praxis) informed by understandings of structural violence. - Innovative possibilities for strategies of survival and social transformation. - Critique of and/or new directions in community psychology and community-based research. Details Submitted papers should contain original and unpublished work and must be written in English. For non-native speakers, editing of the manuscript by a competent English-speaking editor is requested. Papers are due *January 15, 2016*. Early submissions are welcome. All submitted papers will undergo the journal's regular peer review process. Papers must be prepared in full accord with the journal?s Author guidelines and be submitted through the journal portal ( http://siba-ese.unisalento.it/index.php/cpgp/index). *Inquiries regarding topic or scope for the special issue can be sent to Urmitapa Dutta at urmitapa_dutta@uml.edu .* Papers unrelated to the theme of the special issue may be submitted at any time through the journal?s online submission system and will be considered for publication in *Community Psychology In Global Perspective* as regular articles. Inquiries regarding the journal?s aim, scope, and policy can be sent to terri.mannarini@unisalento.it -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CallSpecialIssueStructural-violence2016.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1156532 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150908/586a7cba/attachment-0001.pdf From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Sep 8 14:37:57 2015 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 06:37:57 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change In-Reply-To: <001e01d0ea50$87179fa0$9546dee0$@att.net> References: <001e01d0ea50$87179fa0$9546dee0$@att.net> Message-ID: It's astonishing to me how much of this is in Vygotsky's chapter on infancy and also in his work on The Crisis at One. a) Vygotsky vigorously denies that the newborn is a purely instinctive being; he argues precisely the opposite, that the evidence is that the newborn's instincts are extremely weak, and even those that exist (to do with feeding and positioning) are not "spinal", "medullar", or even purely "midbrain" in their mediation but instead linked to an undeveloped cortex. b) Vygotsky says that most writers on infancy consider that social smiling is the THE key milestone which marks off the newborn period from infancy. Vygotsky says it isn't. Infancy begins with "receptive interest in the world", and it is only reciprocated in later periods of infancy (what Halliday calls proto-conversation). c) In HDHMF, Vygotsky tries to work out a typology of the different forms of higher cultural behavior. He does this through the method Andy calls immanent critique: he takes Thorndike's two level scheme and finds it doesn't explain intellect at all; he then adopts Buhler's three level scheme and finds that, 1) Buhler over-extends it to cover both humans and animals and both children and adults, and 2) it doesn't explain volition at all, since intellect too is a form of adaptation. In the infancy chapter, Vygotsky argues that the roots of ALL of the forms of behavior (instinct, habit, intellect and volition) are right there in infancy--in the form of affect. Halliday too argues against the "blank slate": he points out that each of the different grammatical forms associated with what appears in Vygotsky as crises and stable age periods has a "proto-" period ( which in my scheme corresponds to the crisis) and a "proper" period (which corresponds to the stable period). CRISIS STABLE PERIOD newborn protoconversation infancy conversation proper one protolanguage early childhood language proper crisis at three protonarrative/dialog preschool narrative and dialogue proper crisis at seven protodiscourse (academic wording) school age discourse proper crisis at 13 prototurn taking (grammatical metaphor, variation, register, social dialect) puberty turn-taking proper Halliday, M.A.K. (1978) Meaning and the Construction of Reality. In Modes of Perceiving and Processing Information (H.L. Pick and E. Saltzman Eds), Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 67-96, Also in the Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday, Voll 4, pp. 113-143). David Kellogg On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > Thank you, Mike -- and Martin and Sheila! > Good material to think with and a nudge to look again at Barbara Means' > baby reports. > Tangentially, you know those strollers for babies that are reversible -- > the reclining baby can be looking toward the person pushing the stroller or > with a switch the baby can be looking at the same world the pusher sees? > Maybe different affordances for proto-conversations within one wider > culture (don't know of any studies) and possible mini-impacts on > developments like smiling? > Peg > > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike > cole > Sent: Monday, September 07, 2015 3:20 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Dynamics of Developmental Change > > I have been trying to think of a way to more concretely engage David's > developmental domainsxstages table. One of David's stage margins is at 3 > months and there is ample reason for arguing for the existence a stage > shift in development at this time. (My wife and I wrote about it in just > this way in our textbook). > However, there is also a lot of interesting, newer, evidence showing the > cultural-historical contingency of the changes that underpinned the > developmental literature for several decades. > > I thought that perhaps this example, since it is pretty well worked out, > might help us get at the issues David raised. I believe this work could > usefully be related to notions of zopeds, but am not sure. > > This rather long fragment is taken from a recent article that Martin and I > wrote. > > mike > > (For this one, not only Boesch but Waddington are apt: The latter having > written that every new level of development implies a new, relevant, > context.) > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Sep 8 17:06:40 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 17:06:40 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change In-Reply-To: References: <001e01d0ea50$87179fa0$9546dee0$@att.net> Message-ID: We aim to please, David. Being concrete in this way helps me a lot. A few commentaries in italics in between your paragraphs. On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:37 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > It's astonishing to me how much of this is in Vygotsky's chapter on infancy > and also in his work on The Crisis at One. > > a) Vygotsky vigorously denies that the newborn is a purely instinctive > being; he argues precisely the opposite, that the evidence is that the > newborn's instincts are extremely weak, and even those that exist (to do > with feeding and positioning) are not "spinal", "medullar", or even purely > "midbrain" in their mediation but instead linked to an undeveloped cortex. > ?*I am actually not certain what you are referring to here. The contemporary literature as I read it allows for a very clear set of reflexes present at birth that are sufficiently widespread in the species to be used as tests for serious organic damage. It has long been known that smiling and sucking are observed in hydrocyphalic infants with no cortex.* *The key issue it seems is how to understand the reorganization of the infant's life world and biological consiitution which has, until recent research of the sort in the social smiling case, has used qualitatve change in the physiological nature of, and social consequences of, the beginning of what Vygotsky seems to be referring to by "receptive interest in the world." Differentiation of mother's faces near birth in populations I know about has been pretty clearly established, so receptive interest" seems to be there from the beginning. What is primary intersubjectivity, in LSV's terms? When does human perception become active (is it ever just receptive?), or is it a form of action from the beginning?*? > > b) Vygotsky says that most writers on infancy consider that social smiling > is the THE key milestone which marks off the newborn period from infancy. > Vygotsky says it isn't. Infancy begins with "receptive interest in the > world", and it is only reciprocated in later periods of infancy (what > Halliday calls proto-conversation). > ?*Perhaps Manfred or an xmca-er familiar with the Nso/German and other cases?* *?when reciprocity begins, Their kids show other features of behavior that are part of the ensemble that includes smiling, activity, and in the European cases what might be considered protoconversations. I do not recall data on the study of the local language uses in infant-caretaker interaction for the Nso, but it sure is something we would want to know.* > > c) In HDHMF, Vygotsky tries to work out a typology of the different forms > of higher cultural behavior. He does this through the method Andy calls > immanent critique: he takes Thorndike's two level scheme and finds it > doesn't explain intellect at all; he then adopts Buhler's three level > scheme and finds that, 1) Buhler over-extends it to cover both humans and > animals and both children and adults, and 2) it doesn't explain volition at > all, since intellect too is a form of adaptation. In the infancy chapter, > Vygotsky argues that the roots of ALL of the forms of behavior (instinct, > habit, intellect and volition) are right there in infancy--in the form of > affect. > ?*Perhaps here is where the concept of primary intersubjectivity could be helpful because it is all about affect.*? > > Halliday too argues against the "blank slate": he points out that each of > the different grammatical forms associated with what appears in Vygotsky as > ? > crises and stable age periods has a "proto-" period ( which in my scheme > ? > corresponds to the crisis) and a "proper" period (which > ?c? > orresponds to the > ? > stable period). > > CRISIS STABLE PERIOD > > newborn protoconversation > > infancy conversation proper > > one protolanguage > > early childhood language proper > > crisis at three protonarrative/dialog > > preschool narrative and > dialogue proper > > crisis at seven protodiscourse > (academic wording) > > school age discourse proper > > crisis at 13 prototurn taking > (grammatical metaphor, > variation, register, > social dialect) > puberty turn-taking > proper > > ?---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *This is Halliday, David? And you wish to use it and line it up with LSV?* *If so,* *1. a suggestion concerning the case of the change from newborn to infancy that is the topic of the shift I recently sent around. You might want to put newborn as a stage before, or within, infancy. Protoconversations in Hallidays sense start after The "3 month shift", right? (If their culture is so organized that reciprocal smiling is a valued from of joint mediated, activity- to use my heavy jargon). * *2. What happens when we move outside of schooled environments? I assume they acquire discourse proper in some other fashion? I am uncertain about what it means to acquire turn-taking proper. * 3. *It has always struck me that the stages posited by Piaget and Vygotsky corresponded so closely. I think one of the great benefits of all you have been writing about is that it gets us to focus on the process of change. Piaget had a name for this process, but, disequilbrium. But he does not single out the period of (relatively) rapid transition for special notice. LSV does. And in a manner that seems to be au courant, even if it is in a different dialect.* ? ?Do you by chance have a pdf of the Halliday article? mike? Halliday, M.A.K. (1978) Meaning and the Construction of Reality. In Modes > of Perceiving and Processing Information (H.L. Pick and E. Saltzman Eds), > Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 67-96, Also in the Collected Works of > M.A.K. Halliday, Voll 4, pp. 113-143). > > David Kellogg > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > > > Thank you, Mike -- and Martin and Sheila! > > Good material to think with and a nudge to look again at Barbara Means' > > baby reports. > > Tangentially, you know those strollers for babies that are reversible -- > > the reclining baby can be looking toward the person pushing the stroller > or > > with a switch the baby can be looking at the same world the pusher sees? > > Maybe different affordances for proto-conversations within one wider > > culture (don't know of any studies) and possible mini-impacts on > > developments like smiling? > > Peg > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike > > cole > > Sent: Monday, September 07, 2015 3:20 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Dynamics of Developmental Change > > > > I have been trying to think of a way to more concretely engage David's > > developmental domainsxstages table. One of David's stage margins is at 3 > > months and there is ample reason for arguing for the existence a stage > > shift in development at this time. (My wife and I wrote about it in just > > this way in our textbook). > > However, there is also a lot of interesting, newer, evidence showing the > > cultural-historical contingency of the changes that underpinned the > > developmental literature for several decades. > > > > I thought that perhaps this example, since it is pretty well worked out, > > might help us get at the issues David raised. I believe this work could > > usefully be related to notions of zopeds, but am not sure. > > > > This rather long fragment is taken from a recent article that Martin and > I > > wrote. > > > > mike > > > > (For this one, not only Boesch but Waddington are apt: The latter having > > written that every new level of development implies a new, relevant, > > context.) > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From smago@uga.edu Tue Sep 8 09:03:03 2015 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 16:03:03 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] FW: JoLLE Conference Call for Submissions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Please consider submitting a proposal! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JoLLE2015 Call for Conference Proposals .pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 564980 bytes Desc: JoLLE2015 Call for Conference Proposals .pdf Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150908/1ebcdbf1/attachment.pdf From ulvi.icil@gmail.com Wed Sep 9 13:12:04 2015 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 23:12:04 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Pozenavatel'naya Message-ID: Dear all, I quote this concept from Leong's and Bodrova's book Tools of Mind as it is written there. I could not be sure if this is a correct writing of the word in the book, if there is not any misprint. Can anyone please confirm or correct? I could not even be sure if I should write the term with or without the sign ' . The authors state that the concept is about curiosity, but the English term does not give the meaning in the Russian. Perhaps, the closest is inquisitiveness, reflecting intelelctual curiosity, as is mentioned in the authors' book. Finally, may there be any study, in English, French or Spanish on the Russian concept? Thanks Ulvi From dkellogg60@gmail.com Wed Sep 9 14:45:00 2015 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 06:45:00 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change In-Reply-To: References: <001e01d0ea50$87179fa0$9546dee0$@att.net> Message-ID: I assume that when Mike says "contemporary" he is talking about Vygotsky's contemporaries. It's always very hard for me to resist the temptation to do "Wikipedia" footnotes about the founding fathers of infant psychology--they are a very colorful bunch, and many of them heroic although quite wrong. Rudolf Virchow, for example, discovered leukemia and invented the autopsy. But he was also a bit of a crank: he didn't believe that diseases were caused by germs at all, and he insisted that all disease was cause by social inequality (this sounded a lot truer in the nineteenth century when TB was a leading cause of death). He had himself elected to parliament and made himself so unpopular with Bismarck that he was challenged to a duel. Since he thought duelling was barbaric, he produced two raw pork sausages, one of which was infected with trichinosis, and offered Bismarck a choice. Bismarck declined. Anyway, Virchow believed that infants are essentially "spinal"--all functions are decided "reflex arcs" in the spinal cord and not in the brain at all. Vygotsky thinks that only unimportant reflexes take place there, but he also thinks that there is a gradual movement of the crucial "gap"--the bridging point of the reflex arc--from the pallidum to the striatum to the cortex, and that this pretty much explains how children are able to sit up, and eventually walk. There are two key figures in mapping the cortex. One of them is Flechsig--the fellow who was accused of "bewitching" a judge with homosexual impulses and who Freud defended. The other was Foerster, who was Lenin's personal surgeon during his last illness. Foerster wasn't a neurosurgeon at all: like Virchow he was more interested in the contagious diseases of the poor, but during he war the main contagion was traumatic bullet wounds, and, not being a surgeon, he had the brilliant idea of using only local anaesthetics while he did brain surgery so that he could talk to patients as he was stimulating various parts of the cortex. This allowed him to produce a much more detailed map than Flechsig's, and that was eventually got him a job in the Kremlin. I think Vygotsky is reacting AGAINST a reaction. He actually starts with Shakespeare and Schopenhauer. They have tended to approach the problem of infancy as a matter of explaining why we weep when we enter the world and laugh when we leave. The reaction to this is to treat the infant as essentially brainless, and Vygotsky is very interested in re-establishing the role of the brain, although I rather doubt the theory, apparently taken over wholesale from Nazi psychologists like Kretschmer, that specific structures like the pallidum, and the stratium, just hand their functions up to the cortex. It's clear to me that grammaticization takes place in the cortex (my mother is suffering from stroke related dementia, and it's had a catastrophic effect on her grammar). Hence Halliday (but I'm afraid I don't have any pdfs--just my hardbound collected works--and since I got fired it's pretty hard for me to scan stuff without getting caught). David Kellogg On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, mike cole wrote: > We aim to please, David. Being concrete in this way helps me a lot. > A few commentaries in italics in between your paragraphs. > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:37 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > It's astonishing to me how much of this is in Vygotsky's chapter on > infancy > > and also in his work on The Crisis at One. > > > > a) Vygotsky vigorously denies that the newborn is a purely instinctive > > being; he argues precisely the opposite, that the evidence is that the > > newborn's instincts are extremely weak, and even those that exist (to do > > with feeding and positioning) are not "spinal", "medullar", or even > purely > > "midbrain" in their mediation but instead linked to an undeveloped > cortex. > > > > ?*I am actually not certain what you are referring to here. The > contemporary literature as I read it allows for a very clear set of > reflexes present at birth that are sufficiently widespread in the species > to be used as tests for serious organic damage. It has long been known that > smiling and sucking are observed in hydrocyphalic infants with no cortex.* > > *The key issue it seems is how to understand the reorganization of the > infant's life world and biological consiitution which has, until recent > research of the sort in the social smiling case, has used qualitatve change > in the physiological nature of, and social consequences of, the beginning > of what Vygotsky seems to be referring to by "receptive interest in the > world." Differentiation of mother's faces near birth in populations I know > about has been pretty clearly established, so receptive interest" seems to > be there from the beginning. What is primary intersubjectivity, in LSV's > terms? When does human perception become active (is it ever just > receptive?), or is it a form of action from the beginning?*? > > > > > > b) Vygotsky says that most writers on infancy consider that social > smiling > > is the THE key milestone which marks off the newborn period from infancy. > > Vygotsky says it isn't. Infancy begins with "receptive interest in the > > world", and it is only reciprocated in later periods of infancy (what > > Halliday calls proto-conversation). > > > > ?*Perhaps Manfred or an xmca-er familiar with the Nso/German and other > cases?* > > *?when reciprocity begins, Their kids show other features of behavior that > are part of the ensemble that includes smiling, activity, and in the > European cases what might be considered protoconversations. I do not recall > data on the study of the local language uses in infant-caretaker > interaction for the Nso, but it sure is something we would want to know.* > > > > > c) In HDHMF, Vygotsky tries to work out a typology of the different forms > > of higher cultural behavior. He does this through the method Andy calls > > immanent critique: he takes Thorndike's two level scheme and finds it > > doesn't explain intellect at all; he then adopts Buhler's three level > > scheme and finds that, 1) Buhler over-extends it to cover both humans and > > animals and both children and adults, and 2) it doesn't explain volition > at > > all, since intellect too is a form of adaptation. In the infancy chapter, > > Vygotsky argues that the roots of ALL of the forms of behavior (instinct, > > habit, intellect and volition) are right there in infancy--in the form of > > affect. > > > > ?*Perhaps here is where the concept of primary intersubjectivity could be > helpful because it is all about affect.*? > > > > > > Halliday too argues against the "blank slate": he points out that each of > > the different grammatical forms associated with what appears in Vygotsky > as > > ? > > crises and stable age periods has a "proto-" period ( which in my scheme > > ? > > corresponds to the crisis) and a "proper" period (which > > ?c? > > orresponds to the > > ? > > stable period). > > > > CRISIS STABLE PERIOD > > > > newborn protoconversation > > > > infancy conversation > proper > > > > one protolanguage > > > > early childhood language proper > > > > crisis at three protonarrative/dialog > > > > preschool narrative and > > dialogue proper > > > > crisis at seven protodiscourse > > (academic wording) > > > > school age discourse proper > > > > crisis at 13 prototurn taking > > (grammatical metaphor, > > variation, register, > > social dialect) > > puberty turn-taking > > proper > > > > > > ?---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > *This is Halliday, David? And you wish to use it and line it up with LSV?* > *If so,* > *1. a suggestion concerning the case of the change from newborn to infancy > that is the topic of the shift I recently sent around. You might want to > put newborn as a stage before, or within, infancy. Protoconversations in > Hallidays sense start after The "3 month shift", right? (If their culture > is so organized that reciprocal smiling is a valued from of joint mediated, > activity- to use my heavy jargon). * > > *2. What happens when we move outside of schooled environments? I assume > they acquire discourse proper in some other fashion? I am uncertain about > what it means to acquire turn-taking proper. * > > 3. *It has always struck me that the stages posited by Piaget and Vygotsky > corresponded so closely. I think one of the great benefits of all you have > been writing about is that it gets us to focus on the process of change. > Piaget had a name for this process, but, disequilbrium. But he does not > single out the period of (relatively) rapid transition for special notice. > LSV does. And in a manner that seems to be au courant, even if it is in a > different dialect.* > ? > > ?Do you by chance have a pdf of the Halliday article? > > mike? > > Halliday, M.A.K. (1978) Meaning and the Construction of Reality. In Modes > > of Perceiving and Processing Information (H.L. Pick and E. Saltzman Eds), > > Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 67-96, Also in the Collected Works of > > M.A.K. Halliday, Voll 4, pp. 113-143). > > > > David Kellogg > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Peg Griffin wrote: > > > > > Thank you, Mike -- and Martin and Sheila! > > > Good material to think with and a nudge to look again at Barbara Means' > > > baby reports. > > > Tangentially, you know those strollers for babies that are reversible > -- > > > the reclining baby can be looking toward the person pushing the > stroller > > or > > > with a switch the baby can be looking at the same world the pusher > sees? > > > Maybe different affordances for proto-conversations within one wider > > > culture (don't know of any studies) and possible mini-impacts on > > > developments like smiling? > > > Peg > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike > > > cole > > > Sent: Monday, September 07, 2015 3:20 PM > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Dynamics of Developmental Change > > > > > > I have been trying to think of a way to more concretely engage David's > > > developmental domainsxstages table. One of David's stage margins is at > 3 > > > months and there is ample reason for arguing for the existence a stage > > > shift in development at this time. (My wife and I wrote about it in > just > > > this way in our textbook). > > > However, there is also a lot of interesting, newer, evidence showing > the > > > cultural-historical contingency of the changes that underpinned the > > > developmental literature for several decades. > > > > > > I thought that perhaps this example, since it is pretty well worked > out, > > > might help us get at the issues David raised. I believe this work could > > > usefully be related to notions of zopeds, but am not sure. > > > > > > This rather long fragment is taken from a recent article that Martin > and > > I > > > wrote. > > > > > > mike > > > > > > (For this one, not only Boesch but Waddington are apt: The latter > having > > > written that every new level of development implies a new, relevant, > > > context.) > > > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > > > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Wed Sep 9 14:59:17 2015 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 06:59:17 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Pozenavatel'naya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ulvi: I think it just means "cognition" or "cognitive", doesn't it? ??????????????? David Kellogg On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 5:12 AM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > Dear all, > > I quote this concept > from Leong's and Bodrova's book Tools of Mind as it is written there. > I could not be sure if this is a correct writing of the word in the book, > if there is not any misprint. Can anyone please confirm or correct? I could > not even be sure if I should write the term with or without the sign ' . > The authors state that the concept is about curiosity, but the English term > does not give the meaning in the Russian. > Perhaps, the closest is inquisitiveness, reflecting intelelctual curiosity, > as is mentioned in the authors' book. > Finally, may there be any study, in English, French or Spanish on the > Russian concept? > Thanks > Ulvi > From ulvi.icil@gmail.com Wed Sep 9 15:18:07 2015 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 01:18:07 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Pozenavatel'naya In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am confused about this because what I have from Bodrova's (a Russian) and Leong's book is as follows, in two instances, where we the term. They are as follows exactly: (written with Latin alphabet, not Russian as below) 1. The motivation to learn includes accepting the student role, internalization of standards of performance, and pozenavatel'naya or enquiry motivation (intellectual curiosity). page 170 2. Children without enquiry motivation, Davydov notes, are primarily motivated by grades or by praise from teacher. The word enquiry is the translation of the Russian word poznavatal'naya and although it is similar to the Western idea of intrinsic motivation, it is also different in emphasis on learning and interllectual curiosity. page 171 * So it seems that the concept is used by Davydov, perhaps in Problems of developmental teaching...Soviet education, 30, 66-79 Ulvi On 10 September 2015 at 00:59, David Kellogg wrote: > Ulvi: > > I think it just means "cognition" or "cognitive", doesn't it? > > ??????????????? > > David Kellogg > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 5:12 AM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > I quote this concept > > from Leong's and Bodrova's book Tools of Mind as it is written there. > > I could not be sure if this is a correct writing of the word in the book, > > if there is not any misprint. Can anyone please confirm or correct? I > could > > not even be sure if I should write the term with or without the sign ' . > > The authors state that the concept is about curiosity, but the English > term > > does not give the meaning in the Russian. > > Perhaps, the closest is inquisitiveness, reflecting intelelctual > curiosity, > > as is mentioned in the authors' book. > > Finally, may there be any study, in English, French or Spanish on the > > Russian concept? > > Thanks > > Ulvi > > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Sep 10 08:05:08 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 08:05:08 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change In-Reply-To: References: <001e01d0ea50$87179fa0$9546dee0$@att.net> Message-ID: Great history lesson, David. Thanks. Shakespeare and Schopenhaur. Wow! But I fear I misled you by my use of the word, contemporary. I was referring to 2015, not 1925 or 1885. Its been a while since I have reviewed the literature on neonatal reflexes and their transformations, so I checked a recent text (Bornstein and Lamb- *Developmental Science: An advanced textbook (2015)*. There is an interesting article there by Karen Adolph and a colleague on sensory motor development (ch5) that has a good summary. Very interesting and so far as i can tell, perfectly compatible with emphasis on brain development in the transition to life on the outside and some version of a story about the increasing role cortical structures following a stage-like reorganization at 2-3 months. Particularly intriguing are reflexes present at birth that disappear and then reappear as constituents of more complex forms of behavior. Sorry my attempt to advance the discussion was a misdirection. Better luck next time. Perhaps we could discuss offline unless others want to pursue this issue. Might examination of the notion of primary intersubjectivity provide a more useful avenue of investigation? Not sure. mike On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:45 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > I assume that when Mike says "contemporary" he is talking about Vygotsky's > contemporaries. It's always very hard for me to resist the temptation to do > "Wikipedia" footnotes about the founding fathers of infant psychology--they > are a very colorful bunch, and many of them heroic although quite wrong. > Rudolf Virchow, for example, discovered leukemia and invented the autopsy. > But he was also a bit of a crank: he didn't believe that diseases were > caused by germs at all, and he insisted that all disease was cause by > social inequality (this sounded a lot truer in the nineteenth century when > TB was a leading cause of death). He had himself elected to parliament and > made himself so unpopular with Bismarck that he was challenged to a duel. > Since he thought duelling was barbaric, he produced two raw pork sausages, > one of which was infected with trichinosis, and offered Bismarck a choice. > Bismarck declined. > > Anyway, Virchow believed that infants are essentially "spinal"--all > functions are decided "reflex arcs" in the spinal cord and not in the brain > at all. Vygotsky thinks that only unimportant reflexes take place there, > but he also thinks that there is a gradual movement of the crucial > "gap"--the bridging point of the reflex arc--from the pallidum to the > striatum to the cortex, and that this pretty much explains how children are > able to sit up, and eventually walk. > > There are two key figures in mapping the cortex. One of them is > Flechsig--the fellow who was accused of "bewitching" a judge with > homosexual impulses and who Freud defended. The other was Foerster, who was > Lenin's personal surgeon during his last illness. Foerster wasn't a > neurosurgeon at all: like Virchow he was more interested in the contagious > diseases of the poor, but during he war the main contagion was traumatic > bullet wounds, and, not being a surgeon, he had the brilliant idea of using > only local anaesthetics while he did brain surgery so that he could talk to > patients as he was stimulating various parts of the cortex. This allowed > him to produce a much more detailed map than Flechsig's, and that was > eventually got him a job in the Kremlin. > > I think Vygotsky is reacting AGAINST a reaction. He actually starts with > Shakespeare and Schopenhauer. They have tended to approach the problem of > infancy as a matter of explaining why we weep when we enter the world and > laugh when we leave. The reaction to this is to treat the infant as > essentially brainless, and Vygotsky is very interested in re-establishing > the role of the brain, although I rather doubt the theory, apparently taken > over wholesale from Nazi psychologists like Kretschmer, that specific > structures like the pallidum, and the stratium, just hand their functions > up to the cortex. It's clear to me that grammaticization takes place in the > cortex (my mother is suffering from stroke related dementia, and it's had a > catastrophic effect on her grammar). Hence Halliday (but I'm afraid I don't > have any pdfs--just my hardbound collected works--and since I got fired > it's pretty hard for me to scan stuff without getting caught). > > David Kellogg > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > We aim to please, David. Being concrete in this way helps me a lot. > > A few commentaries in italics in between your paragraphs. > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:37 PM, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > > It's astonishing to me how much of this is in Vygotsky's chapter on > > infancy > > > and also in his work on The Crisis at One. > > > > > > a) Vygotsky vigorously denies that the newborn is a purely instinctive > > > being; he argues precisely the opposite, that the evidence is that the > > > newborn's instincts are extremely weak, and even those that exist (to > do > > > with feeding and positioning) are not "spinal", "medullar", or even > > purely > > > "midbrain" in their mediation but instead linked to an undeveloped > > cortex. > > > > > > > ?*I am actually not certain what you are referring to here. The > > contemporary literature as I read it allows for a very clear set of > > reflexes present at birth that are sufficiently widespread in the species > > to be used as tests for serious organic damage. It has long been known > that > > smiling and sucking are observed in hydrocyphalic infants with no > cortex.* > > > > *The key issue it seems is how to understand the reorganization of the > > infant's life world and biological consiitution which has, until recent > > research of the sort in the social smiling case, has used qualitatve > change > > in the physiological nature of, and social consequences of, the beginning > > of what Vygotsky seems to be referring to by "receptive interest in the > > world." Differentiation of mother's faces near birth in populations I > know > > about has been pretty clearly established, so receptive interest" seems > to > > be there from the beginning. What is primary intersubjectivity, in LSV's > > terms? When does human perception become active (is it ever just > > receptive?), or is it a form of action from the beginning?*? > > > > > > > > > > b) Vygotsky says that most writers on infancy consider that social > > smiling > > > is the THE key milestone which marks off the newborn period from > infancy. > > > Vygotsky says it isn't. Infancy begins with "receptive interest in the > > > world", and it is only reciprocated in later periods of infancy (what > > > Halliday calls proto-conversation). > > > > > > > ?*Perhaps Manfred or an xmca-er familiar with the Nso/German and other > > cases?* > > > > *?when reciprocity begins, Their kids show other features of behavior > that > > are part of the ensemble that includes smiling, activity, and in the > > European cases what might be considered protoconversations. I do not > recall > > data on the study of the local language uses in infant-caretaker > > interaction for the Nso, but it sure is something we would want to know.* > > > > > > > > c) In HDHMF, Vygotsky tries to work out a typology of the different > forms > > > of higher cultural behavior. He does this through the method Andy calls > > > immanent critique: he takes Thorndike's two level scheme and finds it > > > doesn't explain intellect at all; he then adopts Buhler's three level > > > scheme and finds that, 1) Buhler over-extends it to cover both humans > and > > > animals and both children and adults, and 2) it doesn't explain > volition > > at > > > all, since intellect too is a form of adaptation. In the infancy > chapter, > > > Vygotsky argues that the roots of ALL of the forms of behavior > (instinct, > > > habit, intellect and volition) are right there in infancy--in the form > of > > > affect. > > > > > > > ?*Perhaps here is where the concept of primary intersubjectivity could be > > helpful because it is all about affect.*? > > > > > > > > > > Halliday too argues against the "blank slate": he points out that each > of > > > the different grammatical forms associated with what appears in > Vygotsky > > as > > > ? > > > crises and stable age periods has a "proto-" period ( which in my > scheme > > > ? > > > corresponds to the crisis) and a "proper" period (which > > > ?c? > > > orresponds to the > > > ? > > > stable period). > > > > > > CRISIS STABLE PERIOD > > > > > > newborn protoconversation > > > > > > infancy conversation > > proper > > > > > > one protolanguage > > > > > > early childhood language proper > > > > > > crisis at three protonarrative/dialog > > > > > > preschool narrative and > > > dialogue proper > > > > > > crisis at seven protodiscourse > > > (academic wording) > > > > > > school age discourse proper > > > > > > crisis at 13 prototurn taking > > > (grammatical metaphor, > > > variation, register, > > > social dialect) > > > puberty turn-taking > > > proper > > > > > > > > > > > ?---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > *This is Halliday, David? And you wish to use it and line it up with > LSV?* > > *If so,* > > *1. a suggestion concerning the case of the change from newborn to > infancy > > that is the topic of the shift I recently sent around. You might want to > > put newborn as a stage before, or within, infancy. Protoconversations in > > Hallidays sense start after The "3 month shift", right? (If their culture > > is so organized that reciprocal smiling is a valued from of joint > mediated, > > activity- to use my heavy jargon). * > > > > *2. What happens when we move outside of schooled environments? I assume > > they acquire discourse proper in some other fashion? I am uncertain about > > what it means to acquire turn-taking proper. * > > > > 3. *It has always struck me that the stages posited by Piaget and > Vygotsky > > corresponded so closely. I think one of the great benefits of all you > have > > been writing about is that it gets us to focus on the process of change. > > Piaget had a name for this process, but, disequilbrium. But he does not > > single out the period of (relatively) rapid transition for special > notice. > > LSV does. And in a manner that seems to be au courant, even if it is in a > > different dialect.* > > ? > > > > ?Do you by chance have a pdf of the Halliday article? > > > > mike? > > > > Halliday, M.A.K. (1978) Meaning and the Construction of Reality. In Modes > > > of Perceiving and Processing Information (H.L. Pick and E. Saltzman > Eds), > > > Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 67-96, Also in the Collected Works > of > > > M.A.K. Halliday, Voll 4, pp. 113-143). > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Peg Griffin > wrote: > > > > > > > Thank you, Mike -- and Martin and Sheila! > > > > Good material to think with and a nudge to look again at Barbara > Means' > > > > baby reports. > > > > Tangentially, you know those strollers for babies that are reversible > > -- > > > > the reclining baby can be looking toward the person pushing the > > stroller > > > or > > > > with a switch the baby can be looking at the same world the pusher > > sees? > > > > Maybe different affordances for proto-conversations within one wider > > > > culture (don't know of any studies) and possible mini-impacts on > > > > developments like smiling? > > > > Peg > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of > mike > > > > cole > > > > Sent: Monday, September 07, 2015 3:20 PM > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Dynamics of Developmental Change > > > > > > > > I have been trying to think of a way to more concretely engage > David's > > > > developmental domainsxstages table. One of David's stage margins is > at > > 3 > > > > months and there is ample reason for arguing for the existence a > stage > > > > shift in development at this time. (My wife and I wrote about it in > > just > > > > this way in our textbook). > > > > However, there is also a lot of interesting, newer, evidence showing > > the > > > > cultural-historical contingency of the changes that underpinned the > > > > developmental literature for several decades. > > > > > > > > I thought that perhaps this example, since it is pretty well worked > > out, > > > > might help us get at the issues David raised. I believe this work > could > > > > usefully be related to notions of zopeds, but am not sure. > > > > > > > > This rather long fragment is taken from a recent article that Martin > > and > > > I > > > > wrote. > > > > > > > > mike > > > > > > > > (For this one, not only Boesch but Waddington are apt: The latter > > having > > > > written that every new level of development implies a new, relevant, > > > > context.) > > > > > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > > > > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From lpscholar2@gmail.com Thu Sep 10 08:54:33 2015 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 08:54:33 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change In-Reply-To: References: <001e01d0ea50$87179fa0$9546dee0$@att.net> Message-ID: <55f1a7c8.65de420a.f21ad.2cdb@mx.google.com> Mike, I hope these reflections continue on line. The focus on primary intersubjectivity expressing the truth of *reciprocal felt rejoinders* that are not determined through particular modes (vision, hearing, bodily touch). This seems important to the notion of universal beliefs such as social smiling being reciprocal mutual processes or are particular phenomena. So the centrality of felt experience experienced within the power (amplification) of mutuality (reciprocal rejoinders) seems central to primary intersubjectivity. Larry I read this as suggesting it is n -----Original Message----- From: "mike cole" Sent: ?2015-?09-?10 8:07 AM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change Great history lesson, David. Thanks. Shakespeare and Schopenhaur. Wow! But I fear I misled you by my use of the word, contemporary. I was referring to 2015, not 1925 or 1885. Its been a while since I have reviewed the literature on neonatal reflexes and their transformations, so I checked a recent text (Bornstein and Lamb- *Developmental Science: An advanced textbook (2015)*. There is an interesting article there by Karen Adolph and a colleague on sensory motor development (ch5) that has a good summary. Very interesting and so far as i can tell, perfectly compatible with emphasis on brain development in the transition to life on the outside and some version of a story about the increasing role cortical structures following a stage-like reorganization at 2-3 months. Particularly intriguing are reflexes present at birth that disappear and then reappear as constituents of more complex forms of behavior. Sorry my attempt to advance the discussion was a misdirection. Better luck next time. Perhaps we could discuss offline unless others want to pursue this issue. Might examination of the notion of primary intersubjectivity provide a more useful avenue of investigation? Not sure. mike On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:45 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > I assume that when Mike says "contemporary" he is talking about Vygotsky's > contemporaries. It's always very hard for me to resist the temptation to do > "Wikipedia" footnotes about the founding fathers of infant psychology--they > are a very colorful bunch, and many of them heroic although quite wrong. > Rudolf Virchow, for example, discovered leukemia and invented the autopsy. > But he was also a bit of a crank: he didn't believe that diseases were > caused by germs at all, and he insisted that all disease was cause by > social inequality (this sounded a lot truer in the nineteenth century when > TB was a leading cause of death). He had himself elected to parliament and > made himself so unpopular with Bismarck that he was challenged to a duel. > Since he thought duelling was barbaric, he produced two raw pork sausages, > one of which was infected with trichinosis, and offered Bismarck a choice. > Bismarck declined. > > Anyway, Virchow believed that infants are essentially "spinal"--all > functions are decided "reflex arcs" in the spinal cord and not in the brain > at all. Vygotsky thinks that only unimportant reflexes take place there, > but he also thinks that there is a gradual movement of the crucial > "gap"--the bridging point of the reflex arc--from the pallidum to the > striatum to the cortex, and that this pretty much explains how children are > able to sit up, and eventually walk. > > There are two key figures in mapping the cortex. One of them is > Flechsig--the fellow who was accused of "bewitching" a judge with > homosexual impulses and who Freud defended. The other was Foerster, who was > Lenin's personal surgeon during his last illness. Foerster wasn't a > neurosurgeon at all: like Virchow he was more interested in the contagious > diseases of the poor, but during he war the main contagion was traumatic > bullet wounds, and, not being a surgeon, he had the brilliant idea of using > only local anaesthetics while he did brain surgery so that he could talk to > patients as he was stimulating various parts of the cortex. This allowed > him to produce a much more detailed map than Flechsig's, and that was > eventually got him a job in the Kremlin. > > I think Vygotsky is reacting AGAINST a reaction. He actually starts with > Shakespeare and Schopenhauer. They have tended to approach the problem of > infancy as a matter of explaining why we weep when we enter the world and > laugh when we leave. The reaction to this is to treat the infant as > essentially brainless, and Vygotsky is very interested in re-establishing > the role of the brain, although I rather doubt the theory, apparently taken > over wholesale from Nazi psychologists like Kretschmer, that specific > structures like the pallidum, and the stratium, just hand their functions > up to the cortex. It's clear to me that grammaticization takes place in the > cortex (my mother is suffering from stroke related dementia, and it's had a > catastrophic effect on her grammar). Hence Halliday (but I'm afraid I don't > have any pdfs--just my hardbound collected works--and since I got fired > it's pretty hard for me to scan stuff without getting caught). > > David Kellogg > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > We aim to please, David. Being concrete in this way helps me a lot. > > A few commentaries in italics in between your paragraphs. > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:37 PM, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > > It's astonishing to me how much of this is in Vygotsky's chapter on > > infancy > > > and also in his work on The Crisis at One. > > > > > > a) Vygotsky vigorously denies that the newborn is a purely instinctive > > > being; he argues precisely the opposite, that the evidence is that the > > > newborn's instincts are extremely weak, and even those that exist (to > do > > > with feeding and positioning) are not "spinal", "medullar", or even > > purely > > > "midbrain" in their mediation but instead linked to an undeveloped > > cortex. > > > > > > > ?*I am actually not certain what you are referring to here. The > > contemporary literature as I read it allows for a very clear set of > > reflexes present at birth that are sufficiently widespread in the species > > to be used as tests for serious organic damage. It has long been known > that > > smiling and sucking are observed in hydrocyphalic infants with no > cortex.* > > > > *The key issue it seems is how to understand the reorganization of the > > infant's life world and biological consiitution which has, until recent > > research of the sort in the social smiling case, has used qualitatve > change > > in the physiological nature of, and social consequences of, the beginning > > of what Vygotsky seems to be referring to by "receptive interest in the > > world." Differentiation of mother's faces near birth in populations I > know > > about has been pretty clearly established, so receptive interest" seems > to > > be there from the beginning. What is primary intersubjectivity, in LSV's > > terms? When does human perception become active (is it ever just > > receptive?), or is it a form of action from the beginning?*? > > > > > > > > > > b) Vygotsky says that most writers on infancy consider that social > > smiling > > > is the THE key milestone which marks off the newborn period from > infancy. > > > Vygotsky says it isn't. Infancy begins with "receptive interest in the > > > world", and it is only reciprocated in later periods of infancy (what > > > Halliday calls proto-conversation). > > > > > > > ?*Perhaps Manfred or an xmca-er familiar with the Nso/German and other > > cases?* > > > > *?when reciprocity begins, Their kids show other features of behavior > that > > are part of the ensemble that includes smiling, activity, and in the > > European cases what might be considered protoconversations. I do not > recall > > data on the study of the local language uses in infant-caretaker > > interaction for the Nso, but it sure is something we would want to know.* > > > > > > > > c) In HDHMF, Vygotsky tries to work out a typology of the different > forms > > > of higher cultural behavior. He does this through the method Andy calls > > > immanent critique: he takes Thorndike's two level scheme and finds it > > > doesn't explain intellect at all; he then adopts Buhler's three level > > > scheme and finds that, 1) Buhler over-extends it to cover both humans > and > > > animals and both children and adults, and 2) it doesn't explain > volition > > at > > > all, since intellect too is a form of adaptation. In the infancy > chapter, > > > Vygotsky argues that the roots of ALL of the forms of behavior > (instinct, > > > habit, intellect and volition) are right there in infancy--in the form > of > > > affect. > > > > > > > ?*Perhaps here is where the concept of primary intersubjectivity could be > > helpful because it is all about affect.*? > > > > > > > > > > Halliday too argues against the "blank slate": he points out that each > of > > > the different grammatical forms associated with what appears in > Vygotsky > > as > > > ? > > > crises and stable age periods has a "proto-" period ( which in my > scheme > > > ? > > > corresponds to the crisis) and a "proper" period (which > > > ?c? > > > orresponds to the > > > ? > > > stable period). > > > > > > CRISIS STABLE PERIOD > > > > > > newborn protoconversation > > > > > > infancy conversation > > proper > > > > > > one protolanguage > > > > > > early childhood language proper > > > > > > crisis at three protonarrative/dialog > > > > > > preschool narrative and > > > dialogue proper > > > > > > crisis at seven protodiscourse > > > (academic wording) > > > > > > school age discourse proper > > > > > > crisis at 13 prototurn taking > > > (grammatical metaphor, > > > variation, register, > > > social dialect) > > > puberty turn-taking > > > proper > > > > > > > > > > > ?---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > *This is Halliday, David? And you wish to use it and line it up with > LSV?* > > *If so,* > > *1. a suggestion concerning the case of the change from newborn to > infancy > > that is the topic of the shift I recently sent around. You might want to > > put newborn as a stage before, or within, infancy. Protoconversations in > > Hallidays sense start after The "3 month shift", right? (If their culture > > is so organized that reciprocal smiling is a valued from of joint > mediated, > > activity- to use my heavy jargon). * > > > > *2. What happens when we move outside of schooled environments? I assume > > they acquire discourse proper in some other fashion? I am uncertain about > > what it means to acquire turn-taking proper. * > > > > 3. *It has always struck me that the stages posited by Piaget and > Vygotsky > > corresponded so closely. I think one of the great benefits of all you > have > > been writing about is that it gets us to focus on the process of change. > > Piaget had a name for this process, but, disequilbrium. But he does not > > single out the period of (relatively) rapid transition for special > notice. > > LSV does. And in a manner that seems to be au courant, even if it is in a > > different dialect.* > > ? > > > > ?Do you by chance have a pdf of the Halliday article? > > > > mike? > > > > Halliday, M.A.K. (1978) Meaning and the Construction of Reality. In Modes > > > of Perceiving and Processing Information (H.L. Pick and E. Saltzman > Eds), > > > Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 67-96, Also in the Collected Works > of > > > M.A.K. Halliday, Voll 4, pp. 113-143). > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Peg Griffin > wrote: > > > > > > > Thank you, Mike -- and Martin and Sheila! > > > > Good material to think with and a nudge to look again at Barbara > Means' > > > > baby reports. > > > > Tangentially, you know those strollers for babies that are reversible > > -- > > > > the reclining baby can be looking toward the person pushing the > > stroller > > > or > > > > with a switch the baby can be looking at the same world the pusher > > sees? > > > > Maybe different affordances for proto-conversations within one wider > > > > culture (don't know of any studies) and possible mini-impacts on > > > > developments like smiling? > > > > Peg > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of > mike > > > > cole > > > > Sent: Monday, September 07, 2015 3:20 PM > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Dynamics of Developmental Change > > > > > > > > I have been trying to think of a way to more concretely engage > David's > > > > developmental domainsxstages table. One of David's stage margins is > at > > 3 > > > > months and there is ample reason for arguing for the existence a > stage > > > > shift in development at this time. (My wife and I wrote about it in > > just > > > > this way in our textbook). > > > > However, there is also a lot of interesting, newer, evidence showing > > the > > > > cultural-historical contingency of the changes that underpinned the > > > > developmental literature for several decades. > > > > > > > > I thought that perhaps this example, since it is pretty well worked > > out, > > > > might help us get at the issues David raised. I believe this work > could > > > > usefully be related to notions of zopeds, but am not sure. > > > > > > > > This rather long fragment is taken from a recent article that Martin > > and > > > I > > > > wrote. > > > > > > > > mike > > > > > > > > (For this one, not only Boesch but Waddington are apt: The latter > > having > > > > written that every new level of development implies a new, relevant, > > > > context.) > > > > > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > > > > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From dkellogg60@gmail.com Thu Sep 10 15:15:36 2015 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 07:15:36 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change In-Reply-To: <55f1a7c8.65de420a.f21ad.2cdb@mx.google.com> References: <001e01d0ea50$87179fa0$9546dee0$@att.net> <55f1a7c8.65de420a.f21ad.2cdb@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Mike, Larry: Well, to tell you the truth, I did suspect that Mike was talking about up-to-date literature: he knows an AWFUL lot more about it that I do. So some of my misinterpretation was really just showing off my attempts at intellectual history: the artistic/philosophical idea of the child, followed by a mechancal/biologistic model, from which Vygotsky tries the synthesis. So I was really trying--once again--to show off how much Vygotsky knew--not just compared to his contemporaries but even compared to what we know today. I think it's a real demonstration of how powerful the theoretically directed Soviet approach was (of course, it could be theoretically misdirected too, as subsequent developments, particularly in genetics, demonstrated). Another way of looking at it, though, is to say that our own non-Soviet empiricist muddle has been feeble in the extreme. I think that Mike is spot on when he raises intersubjectivity as THE key issue of infant development. In some ways, the development of secondary intersubjectivity is precisely what Vygotsky means by specifically human psychological functions. Vegetarians insist that the property of movement is what should make other sentient beings off limits for consumption. Most of us, when we think about it at all, would probably say that it is the property of language (as the Red Queen remarks to Alice, it's rude to eat someone you have been introduced to(. But we don't eat foreigners, even though we cannot understand what they say, and anyway language itself has to be explained somehow. So I suspect that for most of us it is actually secondary intersubjectivity that makes us inedible. Alas, when I look at the "theory of mind" debates in first language acquisition, I have to admit that until very recently, most of our developmental psychologists would have considered infants rather as we find them in Swift's Modest Proposal. What makes this really hard for me to understand is that it seems to me that without some kind of theory of mind, even primary intersubjectivity is not possible. Dogs clearly do have a theory of mind, although it is equally clearly not a human one. How could we ever have doubted that infants do? (I suspect the answer has to do with another one of Mike's lifelong obsessions--the fallacy of decontextualized measurement.) David Kellogg On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:54 AM, Lplarry wrote: > Mike, > I hope these reflections continue on line. > The focus on primary intersubjectivity expressing the truth of *reciprocal > felt rejoinders* that are not determined through particular modes (vision, > hearing, bodily touch). This seems important to the notion of universal > beliefs such as social smiling being reciprocal mutual processes or are > particular phenomena. > So the centrality of felt experience experienced within the power > (amplification) of mutuality (reciprocal rejoinders) seems central to > primary intersubjectivity. > > Larry > > I read this as suggesting it is n > > -----Original Message----- > From: "mike cole" > Sent: ?2015-?09-?10 8:07 AM > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change > > Great history lesson, David. Thanks. Shakespeare and Schopenhaur. Wow! > But I fear I misled you by my use of the word, contemporary. I was > referring to 2015, not 1925 or 1885. Its been a while since I have reviewed > the literature on neonatal reflexes and their transformations, so I checked > a recent text (Bornstein and Lamb- *Developmental Science: An advanced > textbook (2015)*. There is an interesting article there by Karen Adolph and > a colleague on sensory motor development (ch5) that has a good summary. > Very interesting and so far as i can tell, perfectly compatible with > emphasis on brain development in the transition to life on the outside and > some version of a story about the increasing role cortical structures > following a stage-like reorganization at 2-3 months. Particularly > intriguing are reflexes present at birth that disappear and then reappear > as constituents of more complex forms of behavior. > > Sorry my attempt to advance the discussion was a misdirection. Better luck > next time. Perhaps we could discuss offline unless others want to pursue > this issue. > > Might examination of the notion of primary intersubjectivity provide a more > useful avenue of investigation? Not sure. > > mike > > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:45 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > I assume that when Mike says "contemporary" he is talking about > Vygotsky's > > contemporaries. It's always very hard for me to resist the temptation to > do > > "Wikipedia" footnotes about the founding fathers of infant > psychology--they > > are a very colorful bunch, and many of them heroic although quite wrong. > > Rudolf Virchow, for example, discovered leukemia and invented the > autopsy. > > But he was also a bit of a crank: he didn't believe that diseases were > > caused by germs at all, and he insisted that all disease was cause by > > social inequality (this sounded a lot truer in the nineteenth century > when > > TB was a leading cause of death). He had himself elected to parliament > and > > made himself so unpopular with Bismarck that he was challenged to a duel. > > Since he thought duelling was barbaric, he produced two raw pork > sausages, > > one of which was infected with trichinosis, and offered Bismarck a > choice. > > Bismarck declined. > > > > Anyway, Virchow believed that infants are essentially "spinal"--all > > functions are decided "reflex arcs" in the spinal cord and not in the > brain > > at all. Vygotsky thinks that only unimportant reflexes take place there, > > but he also thinks that there is a gradual movement of the crucial > > "gap"--the bridging point of the reflex arc--from the pallidum to the > > striatum to the cortex, and that this pretty much explains how children > are > > able to sit up, and eventually walk. > > > > There are two key figures in mapping the cortex. One of them is > > Flechsig--the fellow who was accused of "bewitching" a judge with > > homosexual impulses and who Freud defended. The other was Foerster, who > was > > Lenin's personal surgeon during his last illness. Foerster wasn't a > > neurosurgeon at all: like Virchow he was more interested in the > contagious > > diseases of the poor, but during he war the main contagion was traumatic > > bullet wounds, and, not being a surgeon, he had the brilliant idea of > using > > only local anaesthetics while he did brain surgery so that he could talk > to > > patients as he was stimulating various parts of the cortex. This allowed > > him to produce a much more detailed map than Flechsig's, and that was > > eventually got him a job in the Kremlin. > > > > I think Vygotsky is reacting AGAINST a reaction. He actually starts with > > Shakespeare and Schopenhauer. They have tended to approach the problem of > > infancy as a matter of explaining why we weep when we enter the world and > > laugh when we leave. The reaction to this is to treat the infant as > > essentially brainless, and Vygotsky is very interested in re-establishing > > the role of the brain, although I rather doubt the theory, apparently > taken > > over wholesale from Nazi psychologists like Kretschmer, that specific > > structures like the pallidum, and the stratium, just hand their functions > > up to the cortex. It's clear to me that grammaticization takes place in > the > > cortex (my mother is suffering from stroke related dementia, and it's > had a > > catastrophic effect on her grammar). Hence Halliday (but I'm afraid I > don't > > have any pdfs--just my hardbound collected works--and since I got fired > > it's pretty hard for me to scan stuff without getting caught). > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > > > We aim to please, David. Being concrete in this way helps me a lot. > > > A few commentaries in italics in between your paragraphs. > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:37 PM, David Kellogg > > > wrote: > > > > > > > It's astonishing to me how much of this is in Vygotsky's chapter on > > > infancy > > > > and also in his work on The Crisis at One. > > > > > > > > a) Vygotsky vigorously denies that the newborn is a purely > instinctive > > > > being; he argues precisely the opposite, that the evidence is that > the > > > > newborn's instincts are extremely weak, and even those that exist (to > > do > > > > with feeding and positioning) are not "spinal", "medullar", or even > > > purely > > > > "midbrain" in their mediation but instead linked to an undeveloped > > > cortex. > > > > > > > > > > ?*I am actually not certain what you are referring to here. The > > > contemporary literature as I read it allows for a very clear set of > > > reflexes present at birth that are sufficiently widespread in the > species > > > to be used as tests for serious organic damage. It has long been known > > that > > > smiling and sucking are observed in hydrocyphalic infants with no > > cortex.* > > > > > > *The key issue it seems is how to understand the reorganization of the > > > infant's life world and biological consiitution which has, until recent > > > research of the sort in the social smiling case, has used qualitatve > > change > > > in the physiological nature of, and social consequences of, the > beginning > > > of what Vygotsky seems to be referring to by "receptive interest in the > > > world." Differentiation of mother's faces near birth in populations I > > know > > > about has been pretty clearly established, so receptive interest" seems > > to > > > be there from the beginning. What is primary intersubjectivity, in > LSV's > > > terms? When does human perception become active (is it ever just > > > receptive?), or is it a form of action from the beginning?*? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > b) Vygotsky says that most writers on infancy consider that social > > > smiling > > > > is the THE key milestone which marks off the newborn period from > > infancy. > > > > Vygotsky says it isn't. Infancy begins with "receptive interest in > the > > > > world", and it is only reciprocated in later periods of infancy (what > > > > Halliday calls proto-conversation). > > > > > > > > > > ?*Perhaps Manfred or an xmca-er familiar with the Nso/German and other > > > cases?* > > > > > > *?when reciprocity begins, Their kids show other features of behavior > > that > > > are part of the ensemble that includes smiling, activity, and in the > > > European cases what might be considered protoconversations. I do not > > recall > > > data on the study of the local language uses in infant-caretaker > > > interaction for the Nso, but it sure is something we would want to > know.* > > > > > > > > > > > c) In HDHMF, Vygotsky tries to work out a typology of the different > > forms > > > > of higher cultural behavior. He does this through the method Andy > calls > > > > immanent critique: he takes Thorndike's two level scheme and finds it > > > > doesn't explain intellect at all; he then adopts Buhler's three level > > > > scheme and finds that, 1) Buhler over-extends it to cover both humans > > and > > > > animals and both children and adults, and 2) it doesn't explain > > volition > > > at > > > > all, since intellect too is a form of adaptation. In the infancy > > chapter, > > > > Vygotsky argues that the roots of ALL of the forms of behavior > > (instinct, > > > > habit, intellect and volition) are right there in infancy--in the > form > > of > > > > affect. > > > > > > > > > > ?*Perhaps here is where the concept of primary intersubjectivity could > be > > > helpful because it is all about affect.*? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Halliday too argues against the "blank slate": he points out that > each > > of > > > > the different grammatical forms associated with what appears in > > Vygotsky > > > as > > > > ? > > > > crises and stable age periods has a "proto-" period ( which in my > > scheme > > > > ? > > > > corresponds to the crisis) and a "proper" period (which > > > > ?c? > > > > orresponds to the > > > > ? > > > > stable period). > > > > > > > > CRISIS STABLE PERIOD > > > > > > > > newborn protoconversation > > > > > > > > infancy conversation > > > proper > > > > > > > > one protolanguage > > > > > > > > early childhood language proper > > > > > > > > crisis at three protonarrative/dialog > > > > > > > > preschool narrative and > > > > dialogue proper > > > > > > > > crisis at seven protodiscourse > > > > (academic wording) > > > > > > > > school age discourse > proper > > > > > > > > crisis at 13 prototurn taking > > > > (grammatical metaphor, > > > > variation, register, > > > > social dialect) > > > > puberty turn-taking > > > > proper > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ?---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > *This is Halliday, David? And you wish to use it and line it up with > > LSV?* > > > *If so,* > > > *1. a suggestion concerning the case of the change from newborn to > > infancy > > > that is the topic of the shift I recently sent around. You might want > to > > > put newborn as a stage before, or within, infancy. Protoconversations > in > > > Hallidays sense start after The "3 month shift", right? (If their > culture > > > is so organized that reciprocal smiling is a valued from of joint > > mediated, > > > activity- to use my heavy jargon). * > > > > > > *2. What happens when we move outside of schooled environments? I > assume > > > they acquire discourse proper in some other fashion? I am uncertain > about > > > what it means to acquire turn-taking proper. * > > > > > > 3. *It has always struck me that the stages posited by Piaget and > > Vygotsky > > > corresponded so closely. I think one of the great benefits of all you > > have > > > been writing about is that it gets us to focus on the process of > change. > > > Piaget had a name for this process, but, disequilbrium. But he does not > > > single out the period of (relatively) rapid transition for special > > notice. > > > LSV does. And in a manner that seems to be au courant, even if it is > in a > > > different dialect.* > > > ? > > > > > > ?Do you by chance have a pdf of the Halliday article? > > > > > > mike? > > > > > > Halliday, M.A.K. (1978) Meaning and the Construction of Reality. In > Modes > > > > of Perceiving and Processing Information (H.L. Pick and E. Saltzman > > Eds), > > > > Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 67-96, Also in the Collected > Works > > of > > > > M.A.K. Halliday, Voll 4, pp. 113-143). > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Peg Griffin > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thank you, Mike -- and Martin and Sheila! > > > > > Good material to think with and a nudge to look again at Barbara > > Means' > > > > > baby reports. > > > > > Tangentially, you know those strollers for babies that are > reversible > > > -- > > > > > the reclining baby can be looking toward the person pushing the > > > stroller > > > > or > > > > > with a switch the baby can be looking at the same world the pusher > > > sees? > > > > > Maybe different affordances for proto-conversations within one > wider > > > > > culture (don't know of any studies) and possible mini-impacts on > > > > > developments like smiling? > > > > > Peg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > > > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of > > mike > > > > > cole > > > > > Sent: Monday, September 07, 2015 3:20 PM > > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Dynamics of Developmental Change > > > > > > > > > > I have been trying to think of a way to more concretely engage > > David's > > > > > developmental domainsxstages table. One of David's stage margins is > > at > > > 3 > > > > > months and there is ample reason for arguing for the existence a > > stage > > > > > shift in development at this time. (My wife and I wrote about it in > > > just > > > > > this way in our textbook). > > > > > However, there is also a lot of interesting, newer, evidence > showing > > > the > > > > > cultural-historical contingency of the changes that underpinned the > > > > > developmental literature for several decades. > > > > > > > > > > I thought that perhaps this example, since it is pretty well worked > > > out, > > > > > might help us get at the issues David raised. I believe this work > > could > > > > > usefully be related to notions of zopeds, but am not sure. > > > > > > > > > > This rather long fragment is taken from a recent article that > Martin > > > and > > > > I > > > > > wrote. > > > > > > > > > > mike > > > > > > > > > > (For this one, not only Boesch but Waddington are apt: The latter > > > having > > > > > written that every new level of development implies a new, > relevant, > > > > > context.) > > > > > > > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with > an > > > > > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > > > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Sep 10 15:49:15 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:49:15 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change In-Reply-To: References: <001e01d0ea50$87179fa0$9546dee0$@att.net> <55f1a7c8.65de420a.f21ad.2cdb@mx.google.com> Message-ID: I am with you in my continuing, growing, wandering understanding of Vygotsky, David. Including what he had to say about social smiling. And the fact that you so skillfully bring in the psychology of art side of LSV to get us out from under the schoolmaster seems really important to me. I think that perhaps the Nso and other data of this kind, if we had good concurrent sociolinguistic documentation a la Ochs and Schieffelin, it might be possible to specify more "lines" of development that get rewoven during the 2-3month change. It ought to help pin down more reliably what level of the social environment we are referring to when we use the notion of social situation of development. As for primary intersubjectivity...... any evidence among Nso? mike On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 3:15 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Mike, Larry: > > Well, to tell you the truth, I did suspect that Mike was talking about > up-to-date literature: he knows an AWFUL lot more about it that I do. So > some of my misinterpretation was really just showing off my attempts at > intellectual history: the artistic/philosophical idea of the child, > followed by a mechancal/biologistic model, from which Vygotsky tries the > synthesis. > > So I was really trying--once again--to show off how much Vygotsky knew--not > just compared to his contemporaries but even compared to what we know > today. I think it's a real demonstration of how powerful the theoretically > directed Soviet approach was (of course, it could be theoretically > misdirected too, as subsequent developments, particularly in genetics, > demonstrated). > > Another way of looking at it, though, is to say that our own non-Soviet > empiricist muddle has been feeble in the extreme. I think that Mike is spot > on when he raises intersubjectivity as THE key issue of infant development. > In some ways, the development of secondary intersubjectivity is precisely > what Vygotsky means by specifically human psychological functions. > > Vegetarians insist that the property of movement is what should make other > sentient beings off limits for consumption. Most of us, when we think about > it at all, would probably say that it is the property of language (as the > Red Queen remarks to Alice, it's rude to eat someone you have been > introduced to(. But we don't eat foreigners, even though we cannot > understand what they say, and anyway language itself has to be explained > somehow. So I suspect that for most of us it is actually secondary > intersubjectivity that makes us inedible. > > Alas, when I look at the "theory of mind" debates in first language > acquisition, I have to admit that until very recently, most of our > developmental psychologists would have considered infants rather as we find > them in Swift's Modest Proposal. What makes this really hard for me to > understand is that it seems to me that without some kind of theory of mind, > even primary intersubjectivity is not possible. Dogs clearly do have a > theory of mind, although it is equally clearly not a human one. How could > we ever have doubted that infants do? > > (I suspect the answer has to do with another one of Mike's lifelong > obsessions--the fallacy of decontextualized measurement.) > > David Kellogg > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:54 AM, Lplarry wrote: > > > Mike, > > I hope these reflections continue on line. > > The focus on primary intersubjectivity expressing the truth of > *reciprocal > > felt rejoinders* that are not determined through particular modes > (vision, > > hearing, bodily touch). This seems important to the notion of universal > > beliefs such as social smiling being reciprocal mutual processes or are > > particular phenomena. > > So the centrality of felt experience experienced within the power > > (amplification) of mutuality (reciprocal rejoinders) seems central to > > primary intersubjectivity. > > > > Larry > > > > I read this as suggesting it is n > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "mike cole" > > Sent: ?2015-?09-?10 8:07 AM > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change > > > > Great history lesson, David. Thanks. Shakespeare and Schopenhaur. Wow! > > But I fear I misled you by my use of the word, contemporary. I was > > referring to 2015, not 1925 or 1885. Its been a while since I have > reviewed > > the literature on neonatal reflexes and their transformations, so I > checked > > a recent text (Bornstein and Lamb- *Developmental Science: An advanced > > textbook (2015)*. There is an interesting article there by Karen Adolph > and > > a colleague on sensory motor development (ch5) that has a good summary. > > Very interesting and so far as i can tell, perfectly compatible with > > emphasis on brain development in the transition to life on the outside > and > > some version of a story about the increasing role cortical structures > > following a stage-like reorganization at 2-3 months. Particularly > > intriguing are reflexes present at birth that disappear and then reappear > > as constituents of more complex forms of behavior. > > > > Sorry my attempt to advance the discussion was a misdirection. Better > luck > > next time. Perhaps we could discuss offline unless others want to pursue > > this issue. > > > > Might examination of the notion of primary intersubjectivity provide a > more > > useful avenue of investigation? Not sure. > > > > mike > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:45 PM, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > > I assume that when Mike says "contemporary" he is talking about > > Vygotsky's > > > contemporaries. It's always very hard for me to resist the temptation > to > > do > > > "Wikipedia" footnotes about the founding fathers of infant > > psychology--they > > > are a very colorful bunch, and many of them heroic although quite > wrong. > > > Rudolf Virchow, for example, discovered leukemia and invented the > > autopsy. > > > But he was also a bit of a crank: he didn't believe that diseases were > > > caused by germs at all, and he insisted that all disease was cause by > > > social inequality (this sounded a lot truer in the nineteenth century > > when > > > TB was a leading cause of death). He had himself elected to parliament > > and > > > made himself so unpopular with Bismarck that he was challenged to a > duel. > > > Since he thought duelling was barbaric, he produced two raw pork > > sausages, > > > one of which was infected with trichinosis, and offered Bismarck a > > choice. > > > Bismarck declined. > > > > > > Anyway, Virchow believed that infants are essentially "spinal"--all > > > functions are decided "reflex arcs" in the spinal cord and not in the > > brain > > > at all. Vygotsky thinks that only unimportant reflexes take place > there, > > > but he also thinks that there is a gradual movement of the crucial > > > "gap"--the bridging point of the reflex arc--from the pallidum to the > > > striatum to the cortex, and that this pretty much explains how children > > are > > > able to sit up, and eventually walk. > > > > > > There are two key figures in mapping the cortex. One of them is > > > Flechsig--the fellow who was accused of "bewitching" a judge with > > > homosexual impulses and who Freud defended. The other was Foerster, who > > was > > > Lenin's personal surgeon during his last illness. Foerster wasn't a > > > neurosurgeon at all: like Virchow he was more interested in the > > contagious > > > diseases of the poor, but during he war the main contagion was > traumatic > > > bullet wounds, and, not being a surgeon, he had the brilliant idea of > > using > > > only local anaesthetics while he did brain surgery so that he could > talk > > to > > > patients as he was stimulating various parts of the cortex. This > allowed > > > him to produce a much more detailed map than Flechsig's, and that was > > > eventually got him a job in the Kremlin. > > > > > > I think Vygotsky is reacting AGAINST a reaction. He actually starts > with > > > Shakespeare and Schopenhauer. They have tended to approach the problem > of > > > infancy as a matter of explaining why we weep when we enter the world > and > > > laugh when we leave. The reaction to this is to treat the infant as > > > essentially brainless, and Vygotsky is very interested in > re-establishing > > > the role of the brain, although I rather doubt the theory, apparently > > taken > > > over wholesale from Nazi psychologists like Kretschmer, that specific > > > structures like the pallidum, and the stratium, just hand their > functions > > > up to the cortex. It's clear to me that grammaticization takes place in > > the > > > cortex (my mother is suffering from stroke related dementia, and it's > > had a > > > catastrophic effect on her grammar). Hence Halliday (but I'm afraid I > > don't > > > have any pdfs--just my hardbound collected works--and since I got fired > > > it's pretty hard for me to scan stuff without getting caught). > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > > > > > We aim to please, David. Being concrete in this way helps me a lot. > > > > A few commentaries in italics in between your paragraphs. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:37 PM, David Kellogg > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > It's astonishing to me how much of this is in Vygotsky's chapter on > > > > infancy > > > > > and also in his work on The Crisis at One. > > > > > > > > > > a) Vygotsky vigorously denies that the newborn is a purely > > instinctive > > > > > being; he argues precisely the opposite, that the evidence is that > > the > > > > > newborn's instincts are extremely weak, and even those that exist > (to > > > do > > > > > with feeding and positioning) are not "spinal", "medullar", or even > > > > purely > > > > > "midbrain" in their mediation but instead linked to an undeveloped > > > > cortex. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ?*I am actually not certain what you are referring to here. The > > > > contemporary literature as I read it allows for a very clear set of > > > > reflexes present at birth that are sufficiently widespread in the > > species > > > > to be used as tests for serious organic damage. It has long been > known > > > that > > > > smiling and sucking are observed in hydrocyphalic infants with no > > > cortex.* > > > > > > > > *The key issue it seems is how to understand the reorganization of > the > > > > infant's life world and biological consiitution which has, until > recent > > > > research of the sort in the social smiling case, has used qualitatve > > > change > > > > in the physiological nature of, and social consequences of, the > > beginning > > > > of what Vygotsky seems to be referring to by "receptive interest in > the > > > > world." Differentiation of mother's faces near birth in populations I > > > know > > > > about has been pretty clearly established, so receptive interest" > seems > > > to > > > > be there from the beginning. What is primary intersubjectivity, in > > LSV's > > > > terms? When does human perception become active (is it ever just > > > > receptive?), or is it a form of action from the beginning?*? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > b) Vygotsky says that most writers on infancy consider that social > > > > smiling > > > > > is the THE key milestone which marks off the newborn period from > > > infancy. > > > > > Vygotsky says it isn't. Infancy begins with "receptive interest in > > the > > > > > world", and it is only reciprocated in later periods of infancy > (what > > > > > Halliday calls proto-conversation). > > > > > > > > > > > > > ?*Perhaps Manfred or an xmca-er familiar with the Nso/German and > other > > > > cases?* > > > > > > > > *?when reciprocity begins, Their kids show other features of behavior > > > that > > > > are part of the ensemble that includes smiling, activity, and in the > > > > European cases what might be considered protoconversations. I do not > > > recall > > > > data on the study of the local language uses in infant-caretaker > > > > interaction for the Nso, but it sure is something we would want to > > know.* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > c) In HDHMF, Vygotsky tries to work out a typology of the different > > > forms > > > > > of higher cultural behavior. He does this through the method Andy > > calls > > > > > immanent critique: he takes Thorndike's two level scheme and finds > it > > > > > doesn't explain intellect at all; he then adopts Buhler's three > level > > > > > scheme and finds that, 1) Buhler over-extends it to cover both > humans > > > and > > > > > animals and both children and adults, and 2) it doesn't explain > > > volition > > > > at > > > > > all, since intellect too is a form of adaptation. In the infancy > > > chapter, > > > > > Vygotsky argues that the roots of ALL of the forms of behavior > > > (instinct, > > > > > habit, intellect and volition) are right there in infancy--in the > > form > > > of > > > > > affect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ?*Perhaps here is where the concept of primary intersubjectivity > could > > be > > > > helpful because it is all about affect.*? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Halliday too argues against the "blank slate": he points out that > > each > > > of > > > > > the different grammatical forms associated with what appears in > > > Vygotsky > > > > as > > > > > ? > > > > > crises and stable age periods has a "proto-" period ( which in my > > > scheme > > > > > ? > > > > > corresponds to the crisis) and a "proper" period (which > > > > > ?c? > > > > > orresponds to the > > > > > ? > > > > > stable period). > > > > > > > > > > CRISIS STABLE PERIOD > > > > > > > > > > newborn protoconversation > > > > > > > > > > infancy > conversation > > > > proper > > > > > > > > > > one protolanguage > > > > > > > > > > early childhood language > proper > > > > > > > > > > crisis at three protonarrative/dialog > > > > > > > > > > preschool narrative > and > > > > > dialogue proper > > > > > > > > > > crisis at seven protodiscourse > > > > > (academic wording) > > > > > > > > > > school age discourse > > proper > > > > > > > > > > crisis at 13 prototurn taking > > > > > (grammatical metaphor, > > > > > variation, register, > > > > > social dialect) > > > > > puberty > turn-taking > > > > > proper > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ?---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > *This is Halliday, David? And you wish to use it and line it up with > > > LSV?* > > > > *If so,* > > > > *1. a suggestion concerning the case of the change from newborn to > > > infancy > > > > that is the topic of the shift I recently sent around. You might want > > to > > > > put newborn as a stage before, or within, infancy. Protoconversations > > in > > > > Hallidays sense start after The "3 month shift", right? (If their > > culture > > > > is so organized that reciprocal smiling is a valued from of joint > > > mediated, > > > > activity- to use my heavy jargon). * > > > > > > > > *2. What happens when we move outside of schooled environments? I > > assume > > > > they acquire discourse proper in some other fashion? I am uncertain > > about > > > > what it means to acquire turn-taking proper. * > > > > > > > > 3. *It has always struck me that the stages posited by Piaget and > > > Vygotsky > > > > corresponded so closely. I think one of the great benefits of all you > > > have > > > > been writing about is that it gets us to focus on the process of > > change. > > > > Piaget had a name for this process, but, disequilbrium. But he does > not > > > > single out the period of (relatively) rapid transition for special > > > notice. > > > > LSV does. And in a manner that seems to be au courant, even if it is > > in a > > > > different dialect.* > > > > ? > > > > > > > > ?Do you by chance have a pdf of the Halliday article? > > > > > > > > mike? > > > > > > > > Halliday, M.A.K. (1978) Meaning and the Construction of Reality. In > > Modes > > > > > of Perceiving and Processing Information (H.L. Pick and E. Saltzman > > > Eds), > > > > > Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 67-96, Also in the Collected > > Works > > > of > > > > > M.A.K. Halliday, Voll 4, pp. 113-143). > > > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Peg Griffin > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, Mike -- and Martin and Sheila! > > > > > > Good material to think with and a nudge to look again at Barbara > > > Means' > > > > > > baby reports. > > > > > > Tangentially, you know those strollers for babies that are > > reversible > > > > -- > > > > > > the reclining baby can be looking toward the person pushing the > > > > stroller > > > > > or > > > > > > with a switch the baby can be looking at the same world the > pusher > > > > sees? > > > > > > Maybe different affordances for proto-conversations within one > > wider > > > > > > culture (don't know of any studies) and possible mini-impacts on > > > > > > developments like smiling? > > > > > > Peg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu > [mailto: > > > > > > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf > Of > > > mike > > > > > > cole > > > > > > Sent: Monday, September 07, 2015 3:20 PM > > > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Dynamics of Developmental Change > > > > > > > > > > > > I have been trying to think of a way to more concretely engage > > > David's > > > > > > developmental domainsxstages table. One of David's stage margins > is > > > at > > > > 3 > > > > > > months and there is ample reason for arguing for the existence a > > > stage > > > > > > shift in development at this time. (My wife and I wrote about it > in > > > > just > > > > > > this way in our textbook). > > > > > > However, there is also a lot of interesting, newer, evidence > > showing > > > > the > > > > > > cultural-historical contingency of the changes that underpinned > the > > > > > > developmental literature for several decades. > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought that perhaps this example, since it is pretty well > worked > > > > out, > > > > > > might help us get at the issues David raised. I believe this work > > > could > > > > > > usefully be related to notions of zopeds, but am not sure. > > > > > > > > > > > > This rather long fragment is taken from a recent article that > > Martin > > > > and > > > > > I > > > > > > wrote. > > > > > > > > > > > > mike > > > > > > > > > > > > (For this one, not only Boesch but Waddington are apt: The latter > > > > having > > > > > > written that every new level of development implies a new, > > relevant, > > > > > > context.) > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with > > an > > > > > > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > > > > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From hshonerd@gmail.com Thu Sep 10 17:06:33 2015 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 18:06:33 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change In-Reply-To: References: <001e01d0ea50$87179fa0$9546dee0$@att.net> <55f1a7c8.65de420a.f21ad.2cdb@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <24A90C89-D0AB-403E-BB50-BDA59456C498@gmail.com> Mike and David, This may be a diversion from what you are getting at regarding intersubjectivity, but I was web surfing on the "fallacy of decontextualized measurement?. I came up with the attached article in Mind, Culture and Activity by Bert van Oers. ( I believe it was originally published in 1998 then appeared on line in Mind, Culture and Activity in 2009.Interestingly the title is misspelled in the heading that precedes the article, changing decontextualization to detextualization. A Freudian slip?) van Oers is pushing back on Wertsch?s construal of decontextualization. What makes me think this article is one David might have been thinking of was the shoe measurement game documented in the article. The article raises, for me, the issue of the relationship between learning and development at any age, in school or out. Many years ago, my dissertation on L2 learning focused on such learning strategies as vocabulary memorization, which I take to be a form of decontextualization and potentially useful for the use of L2 for real time communication. It seems to me that, if the application is successful, you are moving from learning to development. Even L1 development shows signs of metalinguistic awareness at an early age: the ability to segment and decontextualize the flow of speech. Babbling, which profiles the phonological potential of language, is apparently ?wired in?: even profoundly deaf children do it, though babbling dies out in deaf children. Evidently there is controversy as to whether babbling in infants is continuous with the articulation later on of speech. If this is not entirely off topic, I wonder if anyone wants to comment. Henry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: decontextualization.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1387879 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150910/9e0892f7/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- > On Sep 10, 2015, at 4:49 PM, mike cole wrote: > > I am with you in my continuing, growing, wandering understanding of > Vygotsky, David. Including what he had to say about social smiling. And the > fact that you so skillfully bring in the psychology of art side of LSV to > get us > out from under the schoolmaster seems really important to me. > > I think that perhaps the Nso and other data of this kind, if we had good > concurrent sociolinguistic documentation a la Ochs and Schieffelin, it > might be possible to specify more "lines" of development that get rewoven > during the 2-3month change. It ought to help pin down more reliably what > level of the social environment we are referring to when we use the notion > of social situation of development. > > As for primary intersubjectivity...... any evidence among Nso? > > mike > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 3:15 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > >> Mike, Larry: >> >> Well, to tell you the truth, I did suspect that Mike was talking about >> up-to-date literature: he knows an AWFUL lot more about it that I do. So >> some of my misinterpretation was really just showing off my attempts at >> intellectual history: the artistic/philosophical idea of the child, >> followed by a mechancal/biologistic model, from which Vygotsky tries the >> synthesis. >> >> So I was really trying--once again--to show off how much Vygotsky knew--not >> just compared to his contemporaries but even compared to what we know >> today. I think it's a real demonstration of how powerful the theoretically >> directed Soviet approach was (of course, it could be theoretically >> misdirected too, as subsequent developments, particularly in genetics, >> demonstrated). >> >> Another way of looking at it, though, is to say that our own non-Soviet >> empiricist muddle has been feeble in the extreme. I think that Mike is spot >> on when he raises intersubjectivity as THE key issue of infant development. >> In some ways, the development of secondary intersubjectivity is precisely >> what Vygotsky means by specifically human psychological functions. >> >> Vegetarians insist that the property of movement is what should make other >> sentient beings off limits for consumption. Most of us, when we think about >> it at all, would probably say that it is the property of language (as the >> Red Queen remarks to Alice, it's rude to eat someone you have been >> introduced to(. But we don't eat foreigners, even though we cannot >> understand what they say, and anyway language itself has to be explained >> somehow. So I suspect that for most of us it is actually secondary >> intersubjectivity that makes us inedible. >> >> Alas, when I look at the "theory of mind" debates in first language >> acquisition, I have to admit that until very recently, most of our >> developmental psychologists would have considered infants rather as we find >> them in Swift's Modest Proposal. What makes this really hard for me to >> understand is that it seems to me that without some kind of theory of mind, >> even primary intersubjectivity is not possible. Dogs clearly do have a >> theory of mind, although it is equally clearly not a human one. How could >> we ever have doubted that infants do? >> >> (I suspect the answer has to do with another one of Mike's lifelong >> obsessions--the fallacy of decontextualized measurement.) >> >> David Kellogg >> >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:54 AM, Lplarry wrote: >> >>> Mike, >>> I hope these reflections continue on line. >>> The focus on primary intersubjectivity expressing the truth of >> *reciprocal >>> felt rejoinders* that are not determined through particular modes >> (vision, >>> hearing, bodily touch). This seems important to the notion of universal >>> beliefs such as social smiling being reciprocal mutual processes or are >>> particular phenomena. >>> So the centrality of felt experience experienced within the power >>> (amplification) of mutuality (reciprocal rejoinders) seems central to >>> primary intersubjectivity. >>> >>> Larry >>> >>> I read this as suggesting it is n >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: "mike cole" >>> Sent: ?2015-?09-?10 8:07 AM >>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change >>> >>> Great history lesson, David. Thanks. Shakespeare and Schopenhaur. Wow! >>> But I fear I misled you by my use of the word, contemporary. I was >>> referring to 2015, not 1925 or 1885. Its been a while since I have >> reviewed >>> the literature on neonatal reflexes and their transformations, so I >> checked >>> a recent text (Bornstein and Lamb- *Developmental Science: An advanced >>> textbook (2015)*. There is an interesting article there by Karen Adolph >> and >>> a colleague on sensory motor development (ch5) that has a good summary. >>> Very interesting and so far as i can tell, perfectly compatible with >>> emphasis on brain development in the transition to life on the outside >> and >>> some version of a story about the increasing role cortical structures >>> following a stage-like reorganization at 2-3 months. Particularly >>> intriguing are reflexes present at birth that disappear and then reappear >>> as constituents of more complex forms of behavior. >>> >>> Sorry my attempt to advance the discussion was a misdirection. Better >> luck >>> next time. Perhaps we could discuss offline unless others want to pursue >>> this issue. >>> >>> Might examination of the notion of primary intersubjectivity provide a >> more >>> useful avenue of investigation? Not sure. >>> >>> mike >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:45 PM, David Kellogg >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I assume that when Mike says "contemporary" he is talking about >>> Vygotsky's >>>> contemporaries. It's always very hard for me to resist the temptation >> to >>> do >>>> "Wikipedia" footnotes about the founding fathers of infant >>> psychology--they >>>> are a very colorful bunch, and many of them heroic although quite >> wrong. >>>> Rudolf Virchow, for example, discovered leukemia and invented the >>> autopsy. >>>> But he was also a bit of a crank: he didn't believe that diseases were >>>> caused by germs at all, and he insisted that all disease was cause by >>>> social inequality (this sounded a lot truer in the nineteenth century >>> when >>>> TB was a leading cause of death). He had himself elected to parliament >>> and >>>> made himself so unpopular with Bismarck that he was challenged to a >> duel. >>>> Since he thought duelling was barbaric, he produced two raw pork >>> sausages, >>>> one of which was infected with trichinosis, and offered Bismarck a >>> choice. >>>> Bismarck declined. >>>> >>>> Anyway, Virchow believed that infants are essentially "spinal"--all >>>> functions are decided "reflex arcs" in the spinal cord and not in the >>> brain >>>> at all. Vygotsky thinks that only unimportant reflexes take place >> there, >>>> but he also thinks that there is a gradual movement of the crucial >>>> "gap"--the bridging point of the reflex arc--from the pallidum to the >>>> striatum to the cortex, and that this pretty much explains how children >>> are >>>> able to sit up, and eventually walk. >>>> >>>> There are two key figures in mapping the cortex. One of them is >>>> Flechsig--the fellow who was accused of "bewitching" a judge with >>>> homosexual impulses and who Freud defended. The other was Foerster, who >>> was >>>> Lenin's personal surgeon during his last illness. Foerster wasn't a >>>> neurosurgeon at all: like Virchow he was more interested in the >>> contagious >>>> diseases of the poor, but during he war the main contagion was >> traumatic >>>> bullet wounds, and, not being a surgeon, he had the brilliant idea of >>> using >>>> only local anaesthetics while he did brain surgery so that he could >> talk >>> to >>>> patients as he was stimulating various parts of the cortex. This >> allowed >>>> him to produce a much more detailed map than Flechsig's, and that was >>>> eventually got him a job in the Kremlin. >>>> >>>> I think Vygotsky is reacting AGAINST a reaction. He actually starts >> with >>>> Shakespeare and Schopenhauer. They have tended to approach the problem >> of >>>> infancy as a matter of explaining why we weep when we enter the world >> and >>>> laugh when we leave. The reaction to this is to treat the infant as >>>> essentially brainless, and Vygotsky is very interested in >> re-establishing >>>> the role of the brain, although I rather doubt the theory, apparently >>> taken >>>> over wholesale from Nazi psychologists like Kretschmer, that specific >>>> structures like the pallidum, and the stratium, just hand their >> functions >>>> up to the cortex. It's clear to me that grammaticization takes place in >>> the >>>> cortex (my mother is suffering from stroke related dementia, and it's >>> had a >>>> catastrophic effect on her grammar). Hence Halliday (but I'm afraid I >>> don't >>>> have any pdfs--just my hardbound collected works--and since I got fired >>>> it's pretty hard for me to scan stuff without getting caught). >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, mike cole wrote: >>>> >>>>> We aim to please, David. Being concrete in this way helps me a lot. >>>>> A few commentaries in italics in between your paragraphs. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:37 PM, David Kellogg >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It's astonishing to me how much of this is in Vygotsky's chapter on >>>>> infancy >>>>>> and also in his work on The Crisis at One. >>>>>> >>>>>> a) Vygotsky vigorously denies that the newborn is a purely >>> instinctive >>>>>> being; he argues precisely the opposite, that the evidence is that >>> the >>>>>> newborn's instincts are extremely weak, and even those that exist >> (to >>>> do >>>>>> with feeding and positioning) are not "spinal", "medullar", or even >>>>> purely >>>>>> "midbrain" in their mediation but instead linked to an undeveloped >>>>> cortex. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ?*I am actually not certain what you are referring to here. The >>>>> contemporary literature as I read it allows for a very clear set of >>>>> reflexes present at birth that are sufficiently widespread in the >>> species >>>>> to be used as tests for serious organic damage. It has long been >> known >>>> that >>>>> smiling and sucking are observed in hydrocyphalic infants with no >>>> cortex.* >>>>> >>>>> *The key issue it seems is how to understand the reorganization of >> the >>>>> infant's life world and biological consiitution which has, until >> recent >>>>> research of the sort in the social smiling case, has used qualitatve >>>> change >>>>> in the physiological nature of, and social consequences of, the >>> beginning >>>>> of what Vygotsky seems to be referring to by "receptive interest in >> the >>>>> world." Differentiation of mother's faces near birth in populations I >>>> know >>>>> about has been pretty clearly established, so receptive interest" >> seems >>>> to >>>>> be there from the beginning. What is primary intersubjectivity, in >>> LSV's >>>>> terms? When does human perception become active (is it ever just >>>>> receptive?), or is it a form of action from the beginning?*? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> b) Vygotsky says that most writers on infancy consider that social >>>>> smiling >>>>>> is the THE key milestone which marks off the newborn period from >>>> infancy. >>>>>> Vygotsky says it isn't. Infancy begins with "receptive interest in >>> the >>>>>> world", and it is only reciprocated in later periods of infancy >> (what >>>>>> Halliday calls proto-conversation). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ?*Perhaps Manfred or an xmca-er familiar with the Nso/German and >> other >>>>> cases?* >>>>> >>>>> *?when reciprocity begins, Their kids show other features of behavior >>>> that >>>>> are part of the ensemble that includes smiling, activity, and in the >>>>> European cases what might be considered protoconversations. I do not >>>> recall >>>>> data on the study of the local language uses in infant-caretaker >>>>> interaction for the Nso, but it sure is something we would want to >>> know.* >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> c) In HDHMF, Vygotsky tries to work out a typology of the different >>>> forms >>>>>> of higher cultural behavior. He does this through the method Andy >>> calls >>>>>> immanent critique: he takes Thorndike's two level scheme and finds >> it >>>>>> doesn't explain intellect at all; he then adopts Buhler's three >> level >>>>>> scheme and finds that, 1) Buhler over-extends it to cover both >> humans >>>> and >>>>>> animals and both children and adults, and 2) it doesn't explain >>>> volition >>>>> at >>>>>> all, since intellect too is a form of adaptation. In the infancy >>>> chapter, >>>>>> Vygotsky argues that the roots of ALL of the forms of behavior >>>> (instinct, >>>>>> habit, intellect and volition) are right there in infancy--in the >>> form >>>> of >>>>>> affect. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ?*Perhaps here is where the concept of primary intersubjectivity >> could >>> be >>>>> helpful because it is all about affect.*? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Halliday too argues against the "blank slate": he points out that >>> each >>>> of >>>>>> the different grammatical forms associated with what appears in >>>> Vygotsky >>>>> as >>>>>> ? >>>>>> crises and stable age periods has a "proto-" period ( which in my >>>> scheme >>>>>> ? >>>>>> corresponds to the crisis) and a "proper" period (which >>>>>> ?c? >>>>>> orresponds to the >>>>>> ? >>>>>> stable period). >>>>>> >>>>>> CRISIS STABLE PERIOD >>>>>> >>>>>> newborn protoconversation >>>>>> >>>>>> infancy >> conversation >>>>> proper >>>>>> >>>>>> one protolanguage >>>>>> >>>>>> early childhood language >> proper >>>>>> >>>>>> crisis at three protonarrative/dialog >>>>>> >>>>>> preschool narrative >> and >>>>>> dialogue proper >>>>>> >>>>>> crisis at seven protodiscourse >>>>>> (academic wording) >>>>>> >>>>>> school age discourse >>> proper >>>>>> >>>>>> crisis at 13 prototurn taking >>>>>> (grammatical metaphor, >>>>>> variation, register, >>>>>> social dialect) >>>>>> puberty >> turn-taking >>>>>> proper >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> ?---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> *This is Halliday, David? And you wish to use it and line it up with >>>> LSV?* >>>>> *If so,* >>>>> *1. a suggestion concerning the case of the change from newborn to >>>> infancy >>>>> that is the topic of the shift I recently sent around. You might want >>> to >>>>> put newborn as a stage before, or within, infancy. Protoconversations >>> in >>>>> Hallidays sense start after The "3 month shift", right? (If their >>> culture >>>>> is so organized that reciprocal smiling is a valued from of joint >>>> mediated, >>>>> activity- to use my heavy jargon). * >>>>> >>>>> *2. What happens when we move outside of schooled environments? I >>> assume >>>>> they acquire discourse proper in some other fashion? I am uncertain >>> about >>>>> what it means to acquire turn-taking proper. * >>>>> >>>>> 3. *It has always struck me that the stages posited by Piaget and >>>> Vygotsky >>>>> corresponded so closely. I think one of the great benefits of all you >>>> have >>>>> been writing about is that it gets us to focus on the process of >>> change. >>>>> Piaget had a name for this process, but, disequilbrium. But he does >> not >>>>> single out the period of (relatively) rapid transition for special >>>> notice. >>>>> LSV does. And in a manner that seems to be au courant, even if it is >>> in a >>>>> different dialect.* >>>>> ? >>>>> >>>>> ?Do you by chance have a pdf of the Halliday article? >>>>> >>>>> mike? >>>>> >>>>> Halliday, M.A.K. (1978) Meaning and the Construction of Reality. In >>> Modes >>>>>> of Perceiving and Processing Information (H.L. Pick and E. Saltzman >>>> Eds), >>>>>> Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 67-96, Also in the Collected >>> Works >>>> of >>>>>> M.A.K. Halliday, Voll 4, pp. 113-143). >>>>>> >>>>>> David Kellogg >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Peg Griffin >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you, Mike -- and Martin and Sheila! >>>>>>> Good material to think with and a nudge to look again at Barbara >>>> Means' >>>>>>> baby reports. >>>>>>> Tangentially, you know those strollers for babies that are >>> reversible >>>>> -- >>>>>>> the reclining baby can be looking toward the person pushing the >>>>> stroller >>>>>> or >>>>>>> with a switch the baby can be looking at the same world the >> pusher >>>>> sees? >>>>>>> Maybe different affordances for proto-conversations within one >>> wider >>>>>>> culture (don't know of any studies) and possible mini-impacts on >>>>>>> developments like smiling? >>>>>>> Peg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [mailto: >>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf >> Of >>>> mike >>>>>>> cole >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 07, 2015 3:20 PM >>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Dynamics of Developmental Change >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have been trying to think of a way to more concretely engage >>>> David's >>>>>>> developmental domainsxstages table. One of David's stage margins >> is >>>> at >>>>> 3 >>>>>>> months and there is ample reason for arguing for the existence a >>>> stage >>>>>>> shift in development at this time. (My wife and I wrote about it >> in >>>>> just >>>>>>> this way in our textbook). >>>>>>> However, there is also a lot of interesting, newer, evidence >>> showing >>>>> the >>>>>>> cultural-historical contingency of the changes that underpinned >> the >>>>>>> developmental literature for several decades. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I thought that perhaps this example, since it is pretty well >> worked >>>>> out, >>>>>>> might help us get at the issues David raised. I believe this work >>>> could >>>>>>> usefully be related to notions of zopeds, but am not sure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This rather long fragment is taken from a recent article that >>> Martin >>>>> and >>>>>> I >>>>>>> wrote. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> mike >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (For this one, not only Boesch but Waddington are apt: The latter >>>>> having >>>>>>> written that every new level of development implies a new, >>> relevant, >>>>>>> context.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with >>> an >>>>>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an >>>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an >>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>> >> > > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From lpscholar2@gmail.com Fri Sep 11 00:04:50 2015 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Larry Purss) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:04:50 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change In-Reply-To: <24A90C89-D0AB-403E-BB50-BDA59456C498@gmail.com> References: <001e01d0ea50$87179fa0$9546dee0$@att.net> <55f1a7c8.65de420a.f21ad.2cdb@mx.google.com> <24A90C89-D0AB-403E-BB50-BDA59456C498@gmail.com> Message-ID: Henry, The question of primary intersubjectivity suggests a "general" process of reciprocal rejoinders. The mode can be variable and culturally historically constrained. A particular example is the German babies orient through the visual while the Nos orient through the kinesthetic. It is not the gaze that is "general" but rather the reciprocal action [rejoinders]. In the article exploring the fallacy of decontextualization the general approach seems to focus on the meta/contexts [the contexts of contexts. Instead of the 2x2 grid I would like to play with another schematic presented as an analogy: [particular context is to general context] with the left side always representing the more particular context and the right side the more general context. I want to propose that the "positioning" of what is considered or believed to be particular context is to the left side of the analogy and the "position" of what is considered or believed to be the general context is "positioned" to the right side of the analogy. My focus is on this notion of particular and general "position" is never given IN ITSELF [as a stable position]. The SAME position is reciprocally rejoined as either to the left side or the right side of the analogy DEPENDING on the context OF the context. For example the context of "social smiling" could be considered "general" if the particulars of the German babies gaze is on the left. However, if we position the concept of "social smiling" on the left then the concept of "primary intersubjectivity" [reciprocal interaction/rejoinders] is on the general right. What is "particular" and what is "general" seems to depend on the meta/context. The context OF [upon which] the particular and general positions are reciprocally related within the analogical schematic. It seems to depend on where we "enter" the pictorial or figural schematic diagram. In other words the relation of the concept of "contextualization" and the concept of "decontextualization" are not "positions" in themselves but are reciprocally rejoining within the context of context. Henry, I am out on a limb and very speculative here but that is what I hear in my reading of the fallacy of decontextualization. On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 5:06 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > Mike and David, > This may be a diversion from what you are getting at regarding > intersubjectivity, but I was web surfing on the "fallacy of > decontextualized measurement?. I came up with the attached article in Mind, > Culture and Activity by Bert van Oers. ( I believe it was originally > published in 1998 then appeared on line in Mind, Culture and Activity in > 2009.Interestingly the title is misspelled in the heading that precedes the > article, changing decontextualization to detextualization. A Freudian > slip?) van Oers is pushing back on Wertsch?s construal of > decontextualization. What makes me think this article is one David might > have been thinking of was the shoe measurement game documented in the > article. > > The article raises, for me, the issue of the relationship between learning > and development at any age, in school or out. Many years ago, my > dissertation on L2 learning focused on such learning strategies as > vocabulary memorization, which I take to be a form of decontextualization > and potentially useful for the use of L2 for real time communication. It > seems to me that, if the application is successful, you are moving from > learning to development. Even L1 development shows signs of metalinguistic > awareness at an early age: the ability to segment and decontextualize the > flow of speech. Babbling, which profiles the phonological potential of > language, is apparently ?wired in?: even profoundly deaf children do it, > though babbling dies out in deaf children. Evidently there is controversy > as to whether babbling in infants is continuous with the articulation later > on of speech. > > If this is not entirely off topic, I wonder if anyone wants to comment. > > Henry > > > > > > > On Sep 10, 2015, at 4:49 PM, mike cole wrote: > > > > I am with you in my continuing, growing, wandering understanding of > > Vygotsky, David. Including what he had to say about social smiling. And > the > > fact that you so skillfully bring in the psychology of art side of LSV to > > get us > > out from under the schoolmaster seems really important to me. > > > > I think that perhaps the Nso and other data of this kind, if we had good > > concurrent sociolinguistic documentation a la Ochs and Schieffelin, it > > might be possible to specify more "lines" of development that get rewoven > > during the 2-3month change. It ought to help pin down more reliably what > > level of the social environment we are referring to when we use the > notion > > of social situation of development. > > > > As for primary intersubjectivity...... any evidence among Nso? > > > > mike > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 3:15 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > >> Mike, Larry: > >> > >> Well, to tell you the truth, I did suspect that Mike was talking about > >> up-to-date literature: he knows an AWFUL lot more about it that I do. So > >> some of my misinterpretation was really just showing off my attempts at > >> intellectual history: the artistic/philosophical idea of the child, > >> followed by a mechancal/biologistic model, from which Vygotsky tries the > >> synthesis. > >> > >> So I was really trying--once again--to show off how much Vygotsky > knew--not > >> just compared to his contemporaries but even compared to what we know > >> today. I think it's a real demonstration of how powerful the > theoretically > >> directed Soviet approach was (of course, it could be theoretically > >> misdirected too, as subsequent developments, particularly in genetics, > >> demonstrated). > >> > >> Another way of looking at it, though, is to say that our own non-Soviet > >> empiricist muddle has been feeble in the extreme. I think that Mike is > spot > >> on when he raises intersubjectivity as THE key issue of infant > development. > >> In some ways, the development of secondary intersubjectivity is > precisely > >> what Vygotsky means by specifically human psychological functions. > >> > >> Vegetarians insist that the property of movement is what should make > other > >> sentient beings off limits for consumption. Most of us, when we think > about > >> it at all, would probably say that it is the property of language (as > the > >> Red Queen remarks to Alice, it's rude to eat someone you have been > >> introduced to(. But we don't eat foreigners, even though we cannot > >> understand what they say, and anyway language itself has to be explained > >> somehow. So I suspect that for most of us it is actually secondary > >> intersubjectivity that makes us inedible. > >> > >> Alas, when I look at the "theory of mind" debates in first language > >> acquisition, I have to admit that until very recently, most of our > >> developmental psychologists would have considered infants rather as we > find > >> them in Swift's Modest Proposal. What makes this really hard for me to > >> understand is that it seems to me that without some kind of theory of > mind, > >> even primary intersubjectivity is not possible. Dogs clearly do have a > >> theory of mind, although it is equally clearly not a human one. How > could > >> we ever have doubted that infants do? > >> > >> (I suspect the answer has to do with another one of Mike's lifelong > >> obsessions--the fallacy of decontextualized measurement.) > >> > >> David Kellogg > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:54 AM, Lplarry wrote: > >> > >>> Mike, > >>> I hope these reflections continue on line. > >>> The focus on primary intersubjectivity expressing the truth of > >> *reciprocal > >>> felt rejoinders* that are not determined through particular modes > >> (vision, > >>> hearing, bodily touch). This seems important to the notion of universal > >>> beliefs such as social smiling being reciprocal mutual processes or are > >>> particular phenomena. > >>> So the centrality of felt experience experienced within the power > >>> (amplification) of mutuality (reciprocal rejoinders) seems central to > >>> primary intersubjectivity. > >>> > >>> Larry > >>> > >>> I read this as suggesting it is n > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: "mike cole" > >>> Sent: ?2015-?09-?10 8:07 AM > >>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change > >>> > >>> Great history lesson, David. Thanks. Shakespeare and Schopenhaur. Wow! > >>> But I fear I misled you by my use of the word, contemporary. I was > >>> referring to 2015, not 1925 or 1885. Its been a while since I have > >> reviewed > >>> the literature on neonatal reflexes and their transformations, so I > >> checked > >>> a recent text (Bornstein and Lamb- *Developmental Science: An advanced > >>> textbook (2015)*. There is an interesting article there by Karen Adolph > >> and > >>> a colleague on sensory motor development (ch5) that has a good summary. > >>> Very interesting and so far as i can tell, perfectly compatible with > >>> emphasis on brain development in the transition to life on the outside > >> and > >>> some version of a story about the increasing role cortical structures > >>> following a stage-like reorganization at 2-3 months. Particularly > >>> intriguing are reflexes present at birth that disappear and then > reappear > >>> as constituents of more complex forms of behavior. > >>> > >>> Sorry my attempt to advance the discussion was a misdirection. Better > >> luck > >>> next time. Perhaps we could discuss offline unless others want to > pursue > >>> this issue. > >>> > >>> Might examination of the notion of primary intersubjectivity provide a > >> more > >>> useful avenue of investigation? Not sure. > >>> > >>> mike > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:45 PM, David Kellogg > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I assume that when Mike says "contemporary" he is talking about > >>> Vygotsky's > >>>> contemporaries. It's always very hard for me to resist the temptation > >> to > >>> do > >>>> "Wikipedia" footnotes about the founding fathers of infant > >>> psychology--they > >>>> are a very colorful bunch, and many of them heroic although quite > >> wrong. > >>>> Rudolf Virchow, for example, discovered leukemia and invented the > >>> autopsy. > >>>> But he was also a bit of a crank: he didn't believe that diseases were > >>>> caused by germs at all, and he insisted that all disease was cause by > >>>> social inequality (this sounded a lot truer in the nineteenth century > >>> when > >>>> TB was a leading cause of death). He had himself elected to parliament > >>> and > >>>> made himself so unpopular with Bismarck that he was challenged to a > >> duel. > >>>> Since he thought duelling was barbaric, he produced two raw pork > >>> sausages, > >>>> one of which was infected with trichinosis, and offered Bismarck a > >>> choice. > >>>> Bismarck declined. > >>>> > >>>> Anyway, Virchow believed that infants are essentially "spinal"--all > >>>> functions are decided "reflex arcs" in the spinal cord and not in the > >>> brain > >>>> at all. Vygotsky thinks that only unimportant reflexes take place > >> there, > >>>> but he also thinks that there is a gradual movement of the crucial > >>>> "gap"--the bridging point of the reflex arc--from the pallidum to the > >>>> striatum to the cortex, and that this pretty much explains how > children > >>> are > >>>> able to sit up, and eventually walk. > >>>> > >>>> There are two key figures in mapping the cortex. One of them is > >>>> Flechsig--the fellow who was accused of "bewitching" a judge with > >>>> homosexual impulses and who Freud defended. The other was Foerster, > who > >>> was > >>>> Lenin's personal surgeon during his last illness. Foerster wasn't a > >>>> neurosurgeon at all: like Virchow he was more interested in the > >>> contagious > >>>> diseases of the poor, but during he war the main contagion was > >> traumatic > >>>> bullet wounds, and, not being a surgeon, he had the brilliant idea of > >>> using > >>>> only local anaesthetics while he did brain surgery so that he could > >> talk > >>> to > >>>> patients as he was stimulating various parts of the cortex. This > >> allowed > >>>> him to produce a much more detailed map than Flechsig's, and that was > >>>> eventually got him a job in the Kremlin. > >>>> > >>>> I think Vygotsky is reacting AGAINST a reaction. He actually starts > >> with > >>>> Shakespeare and Schopenhauer. They have tended to approach the problem > >> of > >>>> infancy as a matter of explaining why we weep when we enter the world > >> and > >>>> laugh when we leave. The reaction to this is to treat the infant as > >>>> essentially brainless, and Vygotsky is very interested in > >> re-establishing > >>>> the role of the brain, although I rather doubt the theory, apparently > >>> taken > >>>> over wholesale from Nazi psychologists like Kretschmer, that specific > >>>> structures like the pallidum, and the stratium, just hand their > >> functions > >>>> up to the cortex. It's clear to me that grammaticization takes place > in > >>> the > >>>> cortex (my mother is suffering from stroke related dementia, and it's > >>> had a > >>>> catastrophic effect on her grammar). Hence Halliday (but I'm afraid I > >>> don't > >>>> have any pdfs--just my hardbound collected works--and since I got > fired > >>>> it's pretty hard for me to scan stuff without getting caught). > >>>> > >>>> David Kellogg > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, mike cole wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> We aim to please, David. Being concrete in this way helps me a lot. > >>>>> A few commentaries in italics in between your paragraphs. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:37 PM, David Kellogg > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> It's astonishing to me how much of this is in Vygotsky's chapter on > >>>>> infancy > >>>>>> and also in his work on The Crisis at One. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> a) Vygotsky vigorously denies that the newborn is a purely > >>> instinctive > >>>>>> being; he argues precisely the opposite, that the evidence is that > >>> the > >>>>>> newborn's instincts are extremely weak, and even those that exist > >> (to > >>>> do > >>>>>> with feeding and positioning) are not "spinal", "medullar", or even > >>>>> purely > >>>>>> "midbrain" in their mediation but instead linked to an undeveloped > >>>>> cortex. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ?*I am actually not certain what you are referring to here. The > >>>>> contemporary literature as I read it allows for a very clear set of > >>>>> reflexes present at birth that are sufficiently widespread in the > >>> species > >>>>> to be used as tests for serious organic damage. It has long been > >> known > >>>> that > >>>>> smiling and sucking are observed in hydrocyphalic infants with no > >>>> cortex.* > >>>>> > >>>>> *The key issue it seems is how to understand the reorganization of > >> the > >>>>> infant's life world and biological consiitution which has, until > >> recent > >>>>> research of the sort in the social smiling case, has used qualitatve > >>>> change > >>>>> in the physiological nature of, and social consequences of, the > >>> beginning > >>>>> of what Vygotsky seems to be referring to by "receptive interest in > >> the > >>>>> world." Differentiation of mother's faces near birth in populations I > >>>> know > >>>>> about has been pretty clearly established, so receptive interest" > >> seems > >>>> to > >>>>> be there from the beginning. What is primary intersubjectivity, in > >>> LSV's > >>>>> terms? When does human perception become active (is it ever just > >>>>> receptive?), or is it a form of action from the beginning?*? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> b) Vygotsky says that most writers on infancy consider that social > >>>>> smiling > >>>>>> is the THE key milestone which marks off the newborn period from > >>>> infancy. > >>>>>> Vygotsky says it isn't. Infancy begins with "receptive interest in > >>> the > >>>>>> world", and it is only reciprocated in later periods of infancy > >> (what > >>>>>> Halliday calls proto-conversation). > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ?*Perhaps Manfred or an xmca-er familiar with the Nso/German and > >> other > >>>>> cases?* > >>>>> > >>>>> *?when reciprocity begins, Their kids show other features of behavior > >>>> that > >>>>> are part of the ensemble that includes smiling, activity, and in the > >>>>> European cases what might be considered protoconversations. I do not > >>>> recall > >>>>> data on the study of the local language uses in infant-caretaker > >>>>> interaction for the Nso, but it sure is something we would want to > >>> know.* > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> c) In HDHMF, Vygotsky tries to work out a typology of the different > >>>> forms > >>>>>> of higher cultural behavior. He does this through the method Andy > >>> calls > >>>>>> immanent critique: he takes Thorndike's two level scheme and finds > >> it > >>>>>> doesn't explain intellect at all; he then adopts Buhler's three > >> level > >>>>>> scheme and finds that, 1) Buhler over-extends it to cover both > >> humans > >>>> and > >>>>>> animals and both children and adults, and 2) it doesn't explain > >>>> volition > >>>>> at > >>>>>> all, since intellect too is a form of adaptation. In the infancy > >>>> chapter, > >>>>>> Vygotsky argues that the roots of ALL of the forms of behavior > >>>> (instinct, > >>>>>> habit, intellect and volition) are right there in infancy--in the > >>> form > >>>> of > >>>>>> affect. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ?*Perhaps here is where the concept of primary intersubjectivity > >> could > >>> be > >>>>> helpful because it is all about affect.*? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Halliday too argues against the "blank slate": he points out that > >>> each > >>>> of > >>>>>> the different grammatical forms associated with what appears in > >>>> Vygotsky > >>>>> as > >>>>>> ? > >>>>>> crises and stable age periods has a "proto-" period ( which in my > >>>> scheme > >>>>>> ? > >>>>>> corresponds to the crisis) and a "proper" period (which > >>>>>> ?c? > >>>>>> orresponds to the > >>>>>> ? > >>>>>> stable period). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> CRISIS STABLE PERIOD > >>>>>> > >>>>>> newborn protoconversation > >>>>>> > >>>>>> infancy > >> conversation > >>>>> proper > >>>>>> > >>>>>> one protolanguage > >>>>>> > >>>>>> early childhood language > >> proper > >>>>>> > >>>>>> crisis at three protonarrative/dialog > >>>>>> > >>>>>> preschool narrative > >> and > >>>>>> dialogue proper > >>>>>> > >>>>>> crisis at seven protodiscourse > >>>>>> (academic wording) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> school age discourse > >>> proper > >>>>>> > >>>>>> crisis at 13 prototurn taking > >>>>>> (grammatical metaphor, > >>>>>> variation, register, > >>>>>> social dialect) > >>>>>> puberty > >> turn-taking > >>>>>> proper > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > ?---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>> *This is Halliday, David? And you wish to use it and line it up with > >>>> LSV?* > >>>>> *If so,* > >>>>> *1. a suggestion concerning the case of the change from newborn to > >>>> infancy > >>>>> that is the topic of the shift I recently sent around. You might want > >>> to > >>>>> put newborn as a stage before, or within, infancy. Protoconversations > >>> in > >>>>> Hallidays sense start after The "3 month shift", right? (If their > >>> culture > >>>>> is so organized that reciprocal smiling is a valued from of joint > >>>> mediated, > >>>>> activity- to use my heavy jargon). * > >>>>> > >>>>> *2. What happens when we move outside of schooled environments? I > >>> assume > >>>>> they acquire discourse proper in some other fashion? I am uncertain > >>> about > >>>>> what it means to acquire turn-taking proper. * > >>>>> > >>>>> 3. *It has always struck me that the stages posited by Piaget and > >>>> Vygotsky > >>>>> corresponded so closely. I think one of the great benefits of all you > >>>> have > >>>>> been writing about is that it gets us to focus on the process of > >>> change. > >>>>> Piaget had a name for this process, but, disequilbrium. But he does > >> not > >>>>> single out the period of (relatively) rapid transition for special > >>>> notice. > >>>>> LSV does. And in a manner that seems to be au courant, even if it is > >>> in a > >>>>> different dialect.* > >>>>> ? > >>>>> > >>>>> ?Do you by chance have a pdf of the Halliday article? > >>>>> > >>>>> mike? > >>>>> > >>>>> Halliday, M.A.K. (1978) Meaning and the Construction of Reality. In > >>> Modes > >>>>>> of Perceiving and Processing Information (H.L. Pick and E. Saltzman > >>>> Eds), > >>>>>> Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 67-96, Also in the Collected > >>> Works > >>>> of > >>>>>> M.A.K. Halliday, Voll 4, pp. 113-143). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> David Kellogg > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Peg Griffin > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thank you, Mike -- and Martin and Sheila! > >>>>>>> Good material to think with and a nudge to look again at Barbara > >>>> Means' > >>>>>>> baby reports. > >>>>>>> Tangentially, you know those strollers for babies that are > >>> reversible > >>>>> -- > >>>>>>> the reclining baby can be looking toward the person pushing the > >>>>> stroller > >>>>>> or > >>>>>>> with a switch the baby can be looking at the same world the > >> pusher > >>>>> sees? > >>>>>>> Maybe different affordances for proto-conversations within one > >>> wider > >>>>>>> culture (don't know of any studies) and possible mini-impacts on > >>>>>>> developments like smiling? > >>>>>>> Peg > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu > >> [mailto: > >>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf > >> Of > >>>> mike > >>>>>>> cole > >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 07, 2015 3:20 PM > >>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Dynamics of Developmental Change > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I have been trying to think of a way to more concretely engage > >>>> David's > >>>>>>> developmental domainsxstages table. One of David's stage margins > >> is > >>>> at > >>>>> 3 > >>>>>>> months and there is ample reason for arguing for the existence a > >>>> stage > >>>>>>> shift in development at this time. (My wife and I wrote about it > >> in > >>>>> just > >>>>>>> this way in our textbook). > >>>>>>> However, there is also a lot of interesting, newer, evidence > >>> showing > >>>>> the > >>>>>>> cultural-historical contingency of the changes that underpinned > >> the > >>>>>>> developmental literature for several decades. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I thought that perhaps this example, since it is pretty well > >> worked > >>>>> out, > >>>>>>> might help us get at the issues David raised. I believe this work > >>>> could > >>>>>>> usefully be related to notions of zopeds, but am not sure. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This rather long fragment is taken from a recent article that > >>> Martin > >>>>> and > >>>>>> I > >>>>>>> wrote. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> mike > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> (For this one, not only Boesch but Waddington are apt: The latter > >>>>> having > >>>>>>> written that every new level of development implies a new, > >>> relevant, > >>>>>>> context.) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with > >>> an > >>>>>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> > >>>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > >>>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > >>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > From R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk Fri Sep 11 00:48:24 2015 From: R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk (Rod Parker-Rees) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 07:48:24 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Professorial post at Plymouth University, UK Message-ID: <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC31102B83330@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> Dear XMCA people, We are advertising for a professorial post in the Plymouth Institute of Education at Plymouth University, UK http://www.jobs.ac.uk/job/ALW821/professor-of-education-and-associate-head-research/ I would be very grateful if you could pass this link on to anyone (or any group of people) who might be interested in applying. We are particularly keen to appoint someone with a research background in early childhood studies, working with children with special educational needs or general primary education. With best wishes, Rod Parker-Rees ________________________________ [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form. From smago@uga.edu Fri Sep 11 02:50:38 2015 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:50:38 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change In-Reply-To: References: <001e01d0ea50$87179fa0$9546dee0$@att.net> <55f1a7c8.65de420a.f21ad.2cdb@mx.google.com> Message-ID: I would avoid generalizations covering millions of people. I have been a vegetarian since 1973, when my father had a major heart attack in his 40s and I decided to avoid the diet that was in large part responsible. Over the last 42 years my reasons for maintaining this diet have shifted. For instance, I realized after quitting eating meat that, for the most part, I didn't like how it tasted. It's also better for the planet. Please try to keep essentializing large and diverse populations in this fashion. I don't insist on anything except my own food intake. -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 6:16 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change Mike, Larry: Well, to tell you the truth, I did suspect that Mike was talking about up-to-date literature: he knows an AWFUL lot more about it that I do. So some of my misinterpretation was really just showing off my attempts at intellectual history: the artistic/philosophical idea of the child, followed by a mechancal/biologistic model, from which Vygotsky tries the synthesis. So I was really trying--once again--to show off how much Vygotsky knew--not just compared to his contemporaries but even compared to what we know today. I think it's a real demonstration of how powerful the theoretically directed Soviet approach was (of course, it could be theoretically misdirected too, as subsequent developments, particularly in genetics, demonstrated). Another way of looking at it, though, is to say that our own non-Soviet empiricist muddle has been feeble in the extreme. I think that Mike is spot on when he raises intersubjectivity as THE key issue of infant development. In some ways, the development of secondary intersubjectivity is precisely what Vygotsky means by specifically human psychological functions. Vegetarians insist that the property of movement is what should make other sentient beings off limits for consumption. Most of us, when we think about it at all, would probably say that it is the property of language (as the Red Queen remarks to Alice, it's rude to eat someone you have been introduced to(. But we don't eat foreigners, even though we cannot understand what they say, and anyway language itself has to be explained somehow. So I suspect that for most of us it is actually secondary intersubjectivity that makes us inedible. Alas, when I look at the "theory of mind" debates in first language acquisition, I have to admit that until very recently, most of our developmental psychologists would have considered infants rather as we find them in Swift's Modest Proposal. What makes this really hard for me to understand is that it seems to me that without some kind of theory of mind, even primary intersubjectivity is not possible. Dogs clearly do have a theory of mind, although it is equally clearly not a human one. How could we ever have doubted that infants do? (I suspect the answer has to do with another one of Mike's lifelong obsessions--the fallacy of decontextualized measurement.) David Kellogg On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:54 AM, Lplarry wrote: > Mike, > I hope these reflections continue on line. > The focus on primary intersubjectivity expressing the truth of > *reciprocal felt rejoinders* that are not determined through > particular modes (vision, hearing, bodily touch). This seems important > to the notion of universal beliefs such as social smiling being > reciprocal mutual processes or are particular phenomena. > So the centrality of felt experience experienced within the power > (amplification) of mutuality (reciprocal rejoinders) seems central to > primary intersubjectivity. > > Larry > > I read this as suggesting it is n > > -----Original Message----- > From: "mike cole" > Sent: ?2015-?09-?10 8:07 AM > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change > > Great history lesson, David. Thanks. Shakespeare and Schopenhaur. Wow! > But I fear I misled you by my use of the word, contemporary. I was > referring to 2015, not 1925 or 1885. Its been a while since I have > reviewed the literature on neonatal reflexes and their > transformations, so I checked a recent text (Bornstein and Lamb- > *Developmental Science: An advanced textbook (2015)*. There is an > interesting article there by Karen Adolph and a colleague on sensory motor development (ch5) that has a good summary. > Very interesting and so far as i can tell, perfectly compatible with > emphasis on brain development in the transition to life on the outside > and some version of a story about the increasing role cortical > structures following a stage-like reorganization at 2-3 months. > Particularly intriguing are reflexes present at birth that disappear > and then reappear as constituents of more complex forms of behavior. > > Sorry my attempt to advance the discussion was a misdirection. Better > luck next time. Perhaps we could discuss offline unless others want to > pursue this issue. > > Might examination of the notion of primary intersubjectivity provide a > more useful avenue of investigation? Not sure. > > mike > > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:45 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > I assume that when Mike says "contemporary" he is talking about > Vygotsky's > > contemporaries. It's always very hard for me to resist the > > temptation to > do > > "Wikipedia" footnotes about the founding fathers of infant > psychology--they > > are a very colorful bunch, and many of them heroic although quite wrong. > > Rudolf Virchow, for example, discovered leukemia and invented the > autopsy. > > But he was also a bit of a crank: he didn't believe that diseases > > were caused by germs at all, and he insisted that all disease was > > cause by social inequality (this sounded a lot truer in the > > nineteenth century > when > > TB was a leading cause of death). He had himself elected to > > parliament > and > > made himself so unpopular with Bismarck that he was challenged to a duel. > > Since he thought duelling was barbaric, he produced two raw pork > sausages, > > one of which was infected with trichinosis, and offered Bismarck a > choice. > > Bismarck declined. > > > > Anyway, Virchow believed that infants are essentially "spinal"--all > > functions are decided "reflex arcs" in the spinal cord and not in > > the > brain > > at all. Vygotsky thinks that only unimportant reflexes take place > > there, but he also thinks that there is a gradual movement of the > > crucial "gap"--the bridging point of the reflex arc--from the > > pallidum to the striatum to the cortex, and that this pretty much > > explains how children > are > > able to sit up, and eventually walk. > > > > There are two key figures in mapping the cortex. One of them is > > Flechsig--the fellow who was accused of "bewitching" a judge with > > homosexual impulses and who Freud defended. The other was Foerster, > > who > was > > Lenin's personal surgeon during his last illness. Foerster wasn't a > > neurosurgeon at all: like Virchow he was more interested in the > contagious > > diseases of the poor, but during he war the main contagion was > > traumatic bullet wounds, and, not being a surgeon, he had the > > brilliant idea of > using > > only local anaesthetics while he did brain surgery so that he could > > talk > to > > patients as he was stimulating various parts of the cortex. This > > allowed him to produce a much more detailed map than Flechsig's, and > > that was eventually got him a job in the Kremlin. > > > > I think Vygotsky is reacting AGAINST a reaction. He actually starts > > with Shakespeare and Schopenhauer. They have tended to approach the > > problem of infancy as a matter of explaining why we weep when we > > enter the world and laugh when we leave. The reaction to this is to > > treat the infant as essentially brainless, and Vygotsky is very > > interested in re-establishing the role of the brain, although I > > rather doubt the theory, apparently > taken > > over wholesale from Nazi psychologists like Kretschmer, that > > specific structures like the pallidum, and the stratium, just hand > > their functions up to the cortex. It's clear to me that > > grammaticization takes place in > the > > cortex (my mother is suffering from stroke related dementia, and > > it's > had a > > catastrophic effect on her grammar). Hence Halliday (but I'm afraid > > I > don't > > have any pdfs--just my hardbound collected works--and since I got > > fired it's pretty hard for me to scan stuff without getting caught). > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > > > We aim to please, David. Being concrete in this way helps me a lot. > > > A few commentaries in italics in between your paragraphs. > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:37 PM, David Kellogg > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > It's astonishing to me how much of this is in Vygotsky's chapter > > > > on > > > infancy > > > > and also in his work on The Crisis at One. > > > > > > > > a) Vygotsky vigorously denies that the newborn is a purely > instinctive > > > > being; he argues precisely the opposite, that the evidence is > > > > that > the > > > > newborn's instincts are extremely weak, and even those that > > > > exist (to > > do > > > > with feeding and positioning) are not "spinal", "medullar", or > > > > even > > > purely > > > > "midbrain" in their mediation but instead linked to an > > > > undeveloped > > > cortex. > > > > > > > > > > ?*I am actually not certain what you are referring to here. The > > > contemporary literature as I read it allows for a very clear set > > > of reflexes present at birth that are sufficiently widespread in > > > the > species > > > to be used as tests for serious organic damage. It has long been > > > known > > that > > > smiling and sucking are observed in hydrocyphalic infants with no > > cortex.* > > > > > > *The key issue it seems is how to understand the reorganization of > > > the infant's life world and biological consiitution which has, > > > until recent research of the sort in the social smiling case, has > > > used qualitatve > > change > > > in the physiological nature of, and social consequences of, the > beginning > > > of what Vygotsky seems to be referring to by "receptive interest > > > in the world." Differentiation of mother's faces near birth in > > > populations I > > know > > > about has been pretty clearly established, so receptive interest" > > > seems > > to > > > be there from the beginning. What is primary intersubjectivity, in > LSV's > > > terms? When does human perception become active (is it ever just > > > receptive?), or is it a form of action from the beginning?*? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > b) Vygotsky says that most writers on infancy consider that > > > > social > > > smiling > > > > is the THE key milestone which marks off the newborn period from > > infancy. > > > > Vygotsky says it isn't. Infancy begins with "receptive interest > > > > in > the > > > > world", and it is only reciprocated in later periods of infancy > > > > (what Halliday calls proto-conversation). > > > > > > > > > > ?*Perhaps Manfred or an xmca-er familiar with the Nso/German and > > > other > > > cases?* > > > > > > *?when reciprocity begins, Their kids show other features of > > > behavior > > that > > > are part of the ensemble that includes smiling, activity, and in > > > the European cases what might be considered protoconversations. I > > > do not > > recall > > > data on the study of the local language uses in infant-caretaker > > > interaction for the Nso, but it sure is something we would want to > know.* > > > > > > > > > > > c) In HDHMF, Vygotsky tries to work out a typology of the > > > > different > > forms > > > > of higher cultural behavior. He does this through the method > > > > Andy > calls > > > > immanent critique: he takes Thorndike's two level scheme and > > > > finds it doesn't explain intellect at all; he then adopts > > > > Buhler's three level scheme and finds that, 1) Buhler > > > > over-extends it to cover both humans > > and > > > > animals and both children and adults, and 2) it doesn't explain > > volition > > > at > > > > all, since intellect too is a form of adaptation. In the infancy > > chapter, > > > > Vygotsky argues that the roots of ALL of the forms of behavior > > (instinct, > > > > habit, intellect and volition) are right there in infancy--in > > > > the > form > > of > > > > affect. > > > > > > > > > > ?*Perhaps here is where the concept of primary intersubjectivity > > > could > be > > > helpful because it is all about affect.*? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Halliday too argues against the "blank slate": he points out > > > > that > each > > of > > > > the different grammatical forms associated with what appears in > > Vygotsky > > > as > > > > ? > > > > crises and stable age periods has a "proto-" period ( which in > > > > my > > scheme > > > > ? > > > > corresponds to the crisis) and a "proper" period (which ?c? > > > > orresponds to the ? stable period). > > > > > > > > CRISIS STABLE PERIOD > > > > > > > > newborn protoconversation > > > > > > > > infancy conversation > > > proper > > > > > > > > one protolanguage > > > > > > > > early childhood language proper > > > > > > > > crisis at three protonarrative/dialog > > > > > > > > preschool narrative and > > > > dialogue proper > > > > > > > > crisis at seven protodiscourse > > > > (academic wording) > > > > > > > > school age discourse > proper > > > > > > > > crisis at 13 prototurn taking > > > > (grammatical metaphor, > > > > variation, register, > > > > social dialect) > > > > puberty turn-taking > > > > proper > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ?--------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------- > > > *This is Halliday, David? And you wish to use it and line it up > > > with > > LSV?* > > > *If so,* > > > *1. a suggestion concerning the case of the change from newborn > > > to > > infancy > > > that is the topic of the shift I recently sent around. You might > > > want > to > > > put newborn as a stage before, or within, infancy. > > > Protoconversations > in > > > Hallidays sense start after The "3 month shift", right? (If their > culture > > > is so organized that reciprocal smiling is a valued from of joint > > mediated, > > > activity- to use my heavy jargon). * > > > > > > *2. What happens when we move outside of schooled environments? I > assume > > > they acquire discourse proper in some other fashion? I am > > > uncertain > about > > > what it means to acquire turn-taking proper. * > > > > > > 3. *It has always struck me that the stages posited by Piaget and > > Vygotsky > > > corresponded so closely. I think one of the great benefits of all > > > you > > have > > > been writing about is that it gets us to focus on the process of > change. > > > Piaget had a name for this process, but, disequilbrium. But he > > > does not single out the period of (relatively) rapid transition > > > for special > > notice. > > > LSV does. And in a manner that seems to be au courant, even if it > > > is > in a > > > different dialect.* > > > ? > > > > > > ?Do you by chance have a pdf of the Halliday article? > > > > > > mike? > > > > > > Halliday, M.A.K. (1978) Meaning and the Construction of Reality. > > > In > Modes > > > > of Perceiving and Processing Information (H.L. Pick and E. > > > > Saltzman > > Eds), > > > > Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 67-96, Also in the Collected > Works > > of > > > > M.A.K. Halliday, Voll 4, pp. 113-143). > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Peg Griffin > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thank you, Mike -- and Martin and Sheila! > > > > > Good material to think with and a nudge to look again at > > > > > Barbara > > Means' > > > > > baby reports. > > > > > Tangentially, you know those strollers for babies that are > reversible > > > -- > > > > > the reclining baby can be looking toward the person pushing > > > > > the > > > stroller > > > > or > > > > > with a switch the baby can be looking at the same world the > > > > > pusher > > > sees? > > > > > Maybe different affordances for proto-conversations within > > > > > one > wider > > > > > culture (don't know of any studies) and possible mini-impacts > > > > > on developments like smiling? > > > > > Peg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > > > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf > > > > > xmca-l-bounces+Of > > mike > > > > > cole > > > > > Sent: Monday, September 07, 2015 3:20 PM > > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Dynamics of Developmental Change > > > > > > > > > > I have been trying to think of a way to more concretely engage > > David's > > > > > developmental domainsxstages table. One of David's stage > > > > > margins is > > at > > > 3 > > > > > months and there is ample reason for arguing for the existence > > > > > a > > stage > > > > > shift in development at this time. (My wife and I wrote about > > > > > it in > > > just > > > > > this way in our textbook). > > > > > However, there is also a lot of interesting, newer, evidence > showing > > > the > > > > > cultural-historical contingency of the changes that > > > > > underpinned the developmental literature for several decades. > > > > > > > > > > I thought that perhaps this example, since it is pretty well > > > > > worked > > > out, > > > > > might help us get at the issues David raised. I believe this > > > > > work > > could > > > > > usefully be related to notions of zopeds, but am not sure. > > > > > > > > > > This rather long fragment is taken from a recent article that > Martin > > > and > > > > I > > > > > wrote. > > > > > > > > > > mike > > > > > > > > > > (For this one, not only Boesch but Waddington are apt: The > > > > > latter > > > having > > > > > written that every new level of development implies a new, > relevant, > > > > > context.) > > > > > > > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science > > > > > with > an > > > > > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with > > > an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > From carolmacdon@gmail.com Fri Sep 11 03:34:04 2015 From: carolmacdon@gmail.com (Carol Macdonald) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:34:04 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change In-Reply-To: References: <001e01d0ea50$87179fa0$9546dee0$@att.net> <55f1a7c8.65de420a.f21ad.2cdb@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Just one of my quick, off the cuff comments: I studied children's early language in the early 70s, and when I discovered Vygotsky after 1978, and then in greater depth in the late 80s, I was so impressed with him. He said all the things that developmental psycholinguists were saying, and more of course, and forty years earlier. Stunning person/troika, they were. So, yes, why would we not attribute a theory of mind to kids? Vygotsky and Piaget did. For starters. I read the Piaget/Chomsky debates, *but I think I have said all this stuff on the listserv in the past*. Carol PS I am a vegan animal lover, but really don't understand how this came into the conversation... On 11 September 2015 at 11:50, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > I would avoid generalizations covering millions of people. I have been a > vegetarian since 1973, when my father had a major heart attack in his 40s > and I decided to avoid the diet that was in large part responsible. Over > the last 42 years my reasons for maintaining this diet have shifted. For > instance, I realized after quitting eating meat that, for the most part, I > didn't like how it tasted. It's also better for the planet. Please try to > keep essentializing large and diverse populations in this fashion. I don't > insist on anything except my own food intake. > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 6:16 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change > > Mike, Larry: > > Well, to tell you the truth, I did suspect that Mike was talking about > up-to-date literature: he knows an AWFUL lot more about it that I do. So > some of my misinterpretation was really just showing off my attempts at > intellectual history: the artistic/philosophical idea of the child, > followed by a mechancal/biologistic model, from which Vygotsky tries the > synthesis. > > So I was really trying--once again--to show off how much Vygotsky > knew--not just compared to his contemporaries but even compared to what we > know today. I think it's a real demonstration of how powerful the > theoretically directed Soviet approach was (of course, it could be > theoretically misdirected too, as subsequent developments, particularly in > genetics, demonstrated). > > Another way of looking at it, though, is to say that our own non-Soviet > empiricist muddle has been feeble in the extreme. I think that Mike is spot > on when he raises intersubjectivity as THE key issue of infant development. > In some ways, the development of secondary intersubjectivity is precisely > what Vygotsky means by specifically human psychological functions. > > Vegetarians insist that the property of movement is what should make other > sentient beings off limits for consumption. Most of us, when we think about > it at all, would probably say that it is the property of language (as the > Red Queen remarks to Alice, it's rude to eat someone you have been > introduced to(. But we don't eat foreigners, even though we cannot > understand what they say, and anyway language itself has to be explained > somehow. So I suspect that for most of us it is actually secondary > intersubjectivity that makes us inedible. > > Alas, when I look at the "theory of mind" debates in first language > acquisition, I have to admit that until very recently, most of our > developmental psychologists would have considered infants rather as we find > them in Swift's Modest Proposal. What makes this really hard for me to > understand is that it seems to me that without some kind of theory of mind, > even primary intersubjectivity is not possible. Dogs clearly do have a > theory of mind, although it is equally clearly not a human one. How could > we ever have doubted that infants do? > > (I suspect the answer has to do with another one of Mike's lifelong > obsessions--the fallacy of decontextualized measurement.) > > David Kellogg > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:54 AM, Lplarry wrote: > > > Mike, > > I hope these reflections continue on line. > > The focus on primary intersubjectivity expressing the truth of > > *reciprocal felt rejoinders* that are not determined through > > particular modes (vision, hearing, bodily touch). This seems important > > to the notion of universal beliefs such as social smiling being > > reciprocal mutual processes or are particular phenomena. > > So the centrality of felt experience experienced within the power > > (amplification) of mutuality (reciprocal rejoinders) seems central to > > primary intersubjectivity. > > > > Larry > > > > I read this as suggesting it is n > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "mike cole" > > Sent: ?2015-?09-?10 8:07 AM > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change > > > > Great history lesson, David. Thanks. Shakespeare and Schopenhaur. Wow! > > But I fear I misled you by my use of the word, contemporary. I was > > referring to 2015, not 1925 or 1885. Its been a while since I have > > reviewed the literature on neonatal reflexes and their > > transformations, so I checked a recent text (Bornstein and Lamb- > > *Developmental Science: An advanced textbook (2015)*. There is an > > interesting article there by Karen Adolph and a colleague on sensory > motor development (ch5) that has a good summary. > > Very interesting and so far as i can tell, perfectly compatible with > > emphasis on brain development in the transition to life on the outside > > and some version of a story about the increasing role cortical > > structures following a stage-like reorganization at 2-3 months. > > Particularly intriguing are reflexes present at birth that disappear > > and then reappear as constituents of more complex forms of behavior. > > > > Sorry my attempt to advance the discussion was a misdirection. Better > > luck next time. Perhaps we could discuss offline unless others want to > > pursue this issue. > > > > Might examination of the notion of primary intersubjectivity provide a > > more useful avenue of investigation? Not sure. > > > > mike > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:45 PM, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > > I assume that when Mike says "contemporary" he is talking about > > Vygotsky's > > > contemporaries. It's always very hard for me to resist the > > > temptation to > > do > > > "Wikipedia" footnotes about the founding fathers of infant > > psychology--they > > > are a very colorful bunch, and many of them heroic although quite > wrong. > > > Rudolf Virchow, for example, discovered leukemia and invented the > > autopsy. > > > But he was also a bit of a crank: he didn't believe that diseases > > > were caused by germs at all, and he insisted that all disease was > > > cause by social inequality (this sounded a lot truer in the > > > nineteenth century > > when > > > TB was a leading cause of death). He had himself elected to > > > parliament > > and > > > made himself so unpopular with Bismarck that he was challenged to a > duel. > > > Since he thought duelling was barbaric, he produced two raw pork > > sausages, > > > one of which was infected with trichinosis, and offered Bismarck a > > choice. > > > Bismarck declined. > > > > > > Anyway, Virchow believed that infants are essentially "spinal"--all > > > functions are decided "reflex arcs" in the spinal cord and not in > > > the > > brain > > > at all. Vygotsky thinks that only unimportant reflexes take place > > > there, but he also thinks that there is a gradual movement of the > > > crucial "gap"--the bridging point of the reflex arc--from the > > > pallidum to the striatum to the cortex, and that this pretty much > > > explains how children > > are > > > able to sit up, and eventually walk. > > > > > > There are two key figures in mapping the cortex. One of them is > > > Flechsig--the fellow who was accused of "bewitching" a judge with > > > homosexual impulses and who Freud defended. The other was Foerster, > > > who > > was > > > Lenin's personal surgeon during his last illness. Foerster wasn't a > > > neurosurgeon at all: like Virchow he was more interested in the > > contagious > > > diseases of the poor, but during he war the main contagion was > > > traumatic bullet wounds, and, not being a surgeon, he had the > > > brilliant idea of > > using > > > only local anaesthetics while he did brain surgery so that he could > > > talk > > to > > > patients as he was stimulating various parts of the cortex. This > > > allowed him to produce a much more detailed map than Flechsig's, and > > > that was eventually got him a job in the Kremlin. > > > > > > I think Vygotsky is reacting AGAINST a reaction. He actually starts > > > with Shakespeare and Schopenhauer. They have tended to approach the > > > problem of infancy as a matter of explaining why we weep when we > > > enter the world and laugh when we leave. The reaction to this is to > > > treat the infant as essentially brainless, and Vygotsky is very > > > interested in re-establishing the role of the brain, although I > > > rather doubt the theory, apparently > > taken > > > over wholesale from Nazi psychologists like Kretschmer, that > > > specific structures like the pallidum, and the stratium, just hand > > > their functions up to the cortex. It's clear to me that > > > grammaticization takes place in > > the > > > cortex (my mother is suffering from stroke related dementia, and > > > it's > > had a > > > catastrophic effect on her grammar). Hence Halliday (but I'm afraid > > > I > > don't > > > have any pdfs--just my hardbound collected works--and since I got > > > fired it's pretty hard for me to scan stuff without getting caught). > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:06 AM, mike cole wrote: > > > > > > > We aim to please, David. Being concrete in this way helps me a lot. > > > > A few commentaries in italics in between your paragraphs. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:37 PM, David Kellogg > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > It's astonishing to me how much of this is in Vygotsky's chapter > > > > > on > > > > infancy > > > > > and also in his work on The Crisis at One. > > > > > > > > > > a) Vygotsky vigorously denies that the newborn is a purely > > instinctive > > > > > being; he argues precisely the opposite, that the evidence is > > > > > that > > the > > > > > newborn's instincts are extremely weak, and even those that > > > > > exist (to > > > do > > > > > with feeding and positioning) are not "spinal", "medullar", or > > > > > even > > > > purely > > > > > "midbrain" in their mediation but instead linked to an > > > > > undeveloped > > > > cortex. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ?*I am actually not certain what you are referring to here. The > > > > contemporary literature as I read it allows for a very clear set > > > > of reflexes present at birth that are sufficiently widespread in > > > > the > > species > > > > to be used as tests for serious organic damage. It has long been > > > > known > > > that > > > > smiling and sucking are observed in hydrocyphalic infants with no > > > cortex.* > > > > > > > > *The key issue it seems is how to understand the reorganization of > > > > the infant's life world and biological consiitution which has, > > > > until recent research of the sort in the social smiling case, has > > > > used qualitatve > > > change > > > > in the physiological nature of, and social consequences of, the > > beginning > > > > of what Vygotsky seems to be referring to by "receptive interest > > > > in the world." Differentiation of mother's faces near birth in > > > > populations I > > > know > > > > about has been pretty clearly established, so receptive interest" > > > > seems > > > to > > > > be there from the beginning. What is primary intersubjectivity, in > > LSV's > > > > terms? When does human perception become active (is it ever just > > > > receptive?), or is it a form of action from the beginning?*? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > b) Vygotsky says that most writers on infancy consider that > > > > > social > > > > smiling > > > > > is the THE key milestone which marks off the newborn period from > > > infancy. > > > > > Vygotsky says it isn't. Infancy begins with "receptive interest > > > > > in > > the > > > > > world", and it is only reciprocated in later periods of infancy > > > > > (what Halliday calls proto-conversation). > > > > > > > > > > > > > ?*Perhaps Manfred or an xmca-er familiar with the Nso/German and > > > > other > > > > cases?* > > > > > > > > *?when reciprocity begins, Their kids show other features of > > > > behavior > > > that > > > > are part of the ensemble that includes smiling, activity, and in > > > > the European cases what might be considered protoconversations. I > > > > do not > > > recall > > > > data on the study of the local language uses in infant-caretaker > > > > interaction for the Nso, but it sure is something we would want to > > know.* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > c) In HDHMF, Vygotsky tries to work out a typology of the > > > > > different > > > forms > > > > > of higher cultural behavior. He does this through the method > > > > > Andy > > calls > > > > > immanent critique: he takes Thorndike's two level scheme and > > > > > finds it doesn't explain intellect at all; he then adopts > > > > > Buhler's three level scheme and finds that, 1) Buhler > > > > > over-extends it to cover both humans > > > and > > > > > animals and both children and adults, and 2) it doesn't explain > > > volition > > > > at > > > > > all, since intellect too is a form of adaptation. In the infancy > > > chapter, > > > > > Vygotsky argues that the roots of ALL of the forms of behavior > > > (instinct, > > > > > habit, intellect and volition) are right there in infancy--in > > > > > the > > form > > > of > > > > > affect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ?*Perhaps here is where the concept of primary intersubjectivity > > > > could > > be > > > > helpful because it is all about affect.*? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Halliday too argues against the "blank slate": he points out > > > > > that > > each > > > of > > > > > the different grammatical forms associated with what appears in > > > Vygotsky > > > > as > > > > > ? > > > > > crises and stable age periods has a "proto-" period ( which in > > > > > my > > > scheme > > > > > ? > > > > > corresponds to the crisis) and a "proper" period (which ?c? > > > > > orresponds to the ? stable period). > > > > > > > > > > CRISIS STABLE PERIOD > > > > > > > > > > newborn protoconversation > > > > > > > > > > infancy > conversation > > > > proper > > > > > > > > > > one protolanguage > > > > > > > > > > early childhood language > proper > > > > > > > > > > crisis at three protonarrative/dialog > > > > > > > > > > preschool narrative > and > > > > > dialogue proper > > > > > > > > > > crisis at seven protodiscourse > > > > > (academic wording) > > > > > > > > > > school age discourse > > proper > > > > > > > > > > crisis at 13 prototurn taking > > > > > (grammatical metaphor, > > > > > variation, register, > > > > > social dialect) > > > > > puberty > turn-taking > > > > > proper > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ?--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------- > > > > *This is Halliday, David? And you wish to use it and line it up > > > > with > > > LSV?* > > > > *If so,* > > > > *1. a suggestion concerning the case of the change from newborn > > > > to > > > infancy > > > > that is the topic of the shift I recently sent around. You might > > > > want > > to > > > > put newborn as a stage before, or within, infancy. > > > > Protoconversations > > in > > > > Hallidays sense start after The "3 month shift", right? (If their > > culture > > > > is so organized that reciprocal smiling is a valued from of joint > > > mediated, > > > > activity- to use my heavy jargon). * > > > > > > > > *2. What happens when we move outside of schooled environments? I > > assume > > > > they acquire discourse proper in some other fashion? I am > > > > uncertain > > about > > > > what it means to acquire turn-taking proper. * > > > > > > > > 3. *It has always struck me that the stages posited by Piaget and > > > Vygotsky > > > > corresponded so closely. I think one of the great benefits of all > > > > you > > > have > > > > been writing about is that it gets us to focus on the process of > > change. > > > > Piaget had a name for this process, but, disequilbrium. But he > > > > does not single out the period of (relatively) rapid transition > > > > for special > > > notice. > > > > LSV does. And in a manner that seems to be au courant, even if it > > > > is > > in a > > > > different dialect.* > > > > ? > > > > > > > > ?Do you by chance have a pdf of the Halliday article? > > > > > > > > mike? > > > > > > > > Halliday, M.A.K. (1978) Meaning and the Construction of Reality. > > > > In > > Modes > > > > > of Perceiving and Processing Information (H.L. Pick and E. > > > > > Saltzman > > > Eds), > > > > > Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 67-96, Also in the Collected > > Works > > > of > > > > > M.A.K. Halliday, Voll 4, pp. 113-143). > > > > > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Peg Griffin > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, Mike -- and Martin and Sheila! > > > > > > Good material to think with and a nudge to look again at > > > > > > Barbara > > > Means' > > > > > > baby reports. > > > > > > Tangentially, you know those strollers for babies that are > > reversible > > > > -- > > > > > > the reclining baby can be looking toward the person pushing > > > > > > the > > > > stroller > > > > > or > > > > > > with a switch the baby can be looking at the same world the > > > > > > pusher > > > > sees? > > > > > > Maybe different affordances for proto-conversations within > > > > > > one > > wider > > > > > > culture (don't know of any studies) and possible mini-impacts > > > > > > on developments like smiling? > > > > > > Peg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu > [mailto: > > > > > > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf > > > > > > xmca-l-bounces+Of > > > mike > > > > > > cole > > > > > > Sent: Monday, September 07, 2015 3:20 PM > > > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Dynamics of Developmental Change > > > > > > > > > > > > I have been trying to think of a way to more concretely engage > > > David's > > > > > > developmental domainsxstages table. One of David's stage > > > > > > margins is > > > at > > > > 3 > > > > > > months and there is ample reason for arguing for the existence > > > > > > a > > > stage > > > > > > shift in development at this time. (My wife and I wrote about > > > > > > it in > > > > just > > > > > > this way in our textbook). > > > > > > However, there is also a lot of interesting, newer, evidence > > showing > > > > the > > > > > > cultural-historical contingency of the changes that > > > > > > underpinned the developmental literature for several decades. > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought that perhaps this example, since it is pretty well > > > > > > worked > > > > out, > > > > > > might help us get at the issues David raised. I believe this > > > > > > work > > > could > > > > > > usefully be related to notions of zopeds, but am not sure. > > > > > > > > > > > > This rather long fragment is taken from a recent article that > > Martin > > > > and > > > > > I > > > > > > wrote. > > > > > > > > > > > > mike > > > > > > > > > > > > (For this one, not only Boesch but Waddington are apt: The > > > > > > latter > > > > having > > > > > > written that every new level of development implies a new, > > relevant, > > > > > > context.) > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science > > > > > > with > > an > > > > > > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with > > > > an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > -- Carol A Macdonald PhD (Edin) Developmental psycholinguist Academic, Researcher, and Editor Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa Behind every gifted woman there is often a remarkable cat. From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Fri Sep 11 06:20:11 2015 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:20:11 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change In-Reply-To: References: <001e01d0ea50$87179fa0$9546dee0$@att.net> <55f1a7c8.65de420a.f21ad.2cdb@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <0E34DE9E-8CC9-480F-B7FA-380A093B9C3F@uniandes.edu.co> David, Carol, Why not attribute a theory of mind to infants? First, because it seems extraordinary to suggest that infants are capable of forming theories. Piaget certainly never suggested that sensorimotor intelligence involved the forming of theories. Vygotsky argued that infants are incapable of verbal thinking, which would also seem to rule out the ability to form theories. Second, because there is no reason to think that infants know anything at all about mental states such as beliefs and desires. Piaget didn't attribute such knowledge to infants. Vygotsky argued that children are not aware of their own 'interiority' until around school age, and if this is the case it is hard to see how they could know about the interiority of other people. Third, the researcher responsible for identifying the phenomena of primary intersubjectivity, Colwyn Trevarthen, does not explain it in terms of theory of mind. Martin From R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk Fri Sep 11 07:00:58 2015 From: R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk (Rod Parker-Rees) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:00:58 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change In-Reply-To: <0E34DE9E-8CC9-480F-B7FA-380A093B9C3F@uniandes.edu.co> References: <001e01d0ea50$87179fa0$9546dee0$@att.net> <55f1a7c8.65de420a.f21ad.2cdb@mx.google.com> <0E34DE9E-8CC9-480F-B7FA-380A093B9C3F@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC31102B89A0B@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> I was about to reply in a similar vein but Martin has said it better than I would. The ToM Theory has always struck me as being a particularly odd way to think about how babies and infants engage with the world. I think it is a striking example of adults projecting their mental processes into the bodies and minds of infants (which may well be a powerful force for pedagogy and a necessary condition for intersubjectivity). Few would argue that infants engage with, let alone think about, the mental processes of other people. I would go so far as to say that they don't really engage with other people, at least not in the full sense of recognising a clear distinction between self and other. Rather they engage WITH others IN interactions. Even very young babies are quite capable of noticing differences in the felt experience of interactions with familiar and less familiar others, well before these others are tidily resolved into independently existing categories. It is through engaging in different kinds of interactions that we become aware of the differences between different others and it is this that then allows us to construct an idea of our 'self' as another different other. John Shotter uses Karen Barad's term 'intra-action' in preference to 'inter-action' to emphasise the distinction between a model which focuses on connectedness and one which focuses on 'dividuality'. Colwyn Trevarthen clearly doesn't understand 'intersubjectivity' as a process which requires infants to hold a clear understanding of dividing lines between their own subjectivity and that of others but I suspect that preferring to talk in terms of 'intrasubjectivity' might not help people to grasp what he thinks is going on. All the best, Rod -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Martin John Packer Sent: 11 September 2015 14:20 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change David, Carol, Why not attribute a theory of mind to infants? First, because it seems extraordinary to suggest that infants are capable of forming theories. Piaget certainly never suggested that sensorimotor intelligence involved the forming of theories. Vygotsky argued that infants are incapable of verbal thinking, which would also seem to rule out the ability to form theories. Second, because there is no reason to think that infants know anything at all about mental states such as beliefs and desires. Piaget didn't attribute such knowledge to infants. Vygotsky argued that children are not aware of their own 'interiority' until around school age, and if this is the case it is hard to see how they could know about the interiority of other people. Third, the researcher responsible for identifying the phenomena of primary intersubjectivity, Colwyn Trevarthen, does not explain it in terms of theory of mind. Martin ________________________________ [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form. From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Fri Sep 11 07:09:02 2015 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:09:02 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change In-Reply-To: <0E34DE9E-8CC9-480F-B7FA-380A093B9C3F@uniandes.edu.co> References: <001e01d0ea50$87179fa0$9546dee0$@att.net> <55f1a7c8.65de420a.f21ad.2cdb@mx.google.com> <0E34DE9E-8CC9-480F-B7FA-380A093B9C3F@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: Martin, What does it mean to state that a developmental being lacks some faculty that is potentially available to them? It seems to me it either means that this faculty lacks sophistication (and that it is then technically incorrect to say that they lack the faculty per se) or that the claimant is making a logical fallacy by applying idioms of formal logic to a genetic or developmental domain. Why should a nascent, genetically conceived ToM be something that is interior? Best, Huw On 11 September 2015 at 14:20, Martin John Packer wrote: > David, Carol, > > Why not attribute a theory of mind to infants? > > First, because it seems extraordinary to suggest that infants are capable > of forming theories. Piaget certainly never suggested that sensorimotor > intelligence involved the forming of theories. Vygotsky argued that infants > are incapable of verbal thinking, which would also seem to rule out the > ability to form theories. > > Second, because there is no reason to think that infants know anything at > all about mental states such as beliefs and desires. Piaget didn't > attribute such knowledge to infants. Vygotsky argued that children are not > aware of their own 'interiority' until around school age, and if this is > the case it is hard to see how they could know about the interiority of > other people. > > Third, the researcher responsible for identifying the phenomena of primary > intersubjectivity, Colwyn Trevarthen, does not explain it in terms of > theory of mind. > > Martin > > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Fri Sep 11 08:00:56 2015 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:00:56 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change In-Reply-To: References: <001e01d0ea50$87179fa0$9546dee0$@att.net> <55f1a7c8.65de420a.f21ad.2cdb@mx.google.com> <0E34DE9E-8CC9-480F-B7FA-380A093B9C3F@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: <55f2ecbf.0158440a.d30a5.2061@mx.google.com> Rod, The notion *theory* as projection of adults ways of orienting within beliefs develops. The notion of "mind" within "events" is a further question? Does mind exist prior to activities (which are invisible). The first principle of activity theory is that activities can never be observed or focused upon or approached DIRECTLY. Or are mental (events) expressed actions that can be directly observed (as gestures) and are animated phenomena and we have the potential capacity to enter into reciprocal inter (or intra) subjective mental (events) A third notion of mental (events) is that they are not invisible activities nor inter/intra ACTIONS which express invisible activities but mental (events) actually reside within the interior of each person guiding our actions and tool use. In other words are mental (events) emergent phenomena that emerge through invisible activities observed within our animated actions. Or are mental (events) the inter (or intra) ACTIONS which express the actual invisible activities. Or are mental (events) orienting within interior places (inside our head or body). I am not clear where mental (events) are located? It seems to depend on where we locate animating phenomena. My bias appreciates Rod and Mike speculating that primary intersubjevtivity as a place to enter the development of mental (events) Larry -----Original Message----- From: "Huw Lloyd" Sent: ?2015-?09-?11 7:11 AM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change Martin, What does it mean to state that a developmental being lacks some faculty that is potentially available to them? It seems to me it either means that this faculty lacks sophistication (and that it is then technically incorrect to say that they lack the faculty per se) or that the claimant is making a logical fallacy by applying idioms of formal logic to a genetic or developmental domain. Why should a nascent, genetically conceived ToM be something that is interior? Best, Huw On 11 September 2015 at 14:20, Martin John Packer wrote: > David, Carol, > > Why not attribute a theory of mind to infants? > > First, because it seems extraordinary to suggest that infants are capable > of forming theories. Piaget certainly never suggested that sensorimotor > intelligence involved the forming of theories. Vygotsky argued that infants > are incapable of verbal thinking, which would also seem to rule out the > ability to form theories. > > Second, because there is no reason to think that infants know anything at > all about mental states such as beliefs and desires. Piaget didn't > attribute such knowledge to infants. Vygotsky argued that children are not > aware of their own 'interiority' until around school age, and if this is > the case it is hard to see how they could know about the interiority of > other people. > > Third, the researcher responsible for identifying the phenomena of primary > intersubjectivity, Colwyn Trevarthen, does not explain it in terms of > theory of mind. > > Martin > > > From R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk Fri Sep 11 08:18:59 2015 From: R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk (Rod Parker-Rees) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:18:59 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change In-Reply-To: <55f2ecbf.0158440a.d30a5.2061@mx.google.com> References: <001e01d0ea50$87179fa0$9546dee0$@att.net> <55f1a7c8.65de420a.f21ad.2cdb@mx.google.com> <0E34DE9E-8CC9-480F-B7FA-380A093B9C3F@uniandes.edu.co> <55f2ecbf.0158440a.d30a5.2061@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <8F385CC13313CC47B866739C3A4BC31102B8AAA5@TIS103.uopnet.plymouth.ac.uk> It seems odd that we talk about 'theory' developing, since this tends to imply an unfolding process (though I am well aware that it doesn't have so much of this connotation to xmca people). The shift from a life in which meaning inheres in contexts to one in which meaning is understood through concepts can be seen as internalisation of the actions and reactions of other people. We don't UNDERSTAND a concept unless we know something about how it is used by other people so even the events which happen inside an 'individual' head are products of earlier intra/interactions with others. So it takes more than one brain to make a mind. Rod -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lplarry Sent: 11 September 2015 16:01 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change Rod, The notion *theory* as projection of adults ways of orienting within beliefs develops. The notion of "mind" within "events" is a further question? Does mind exist prior to activities (which are invisible). The first principle of activity theory is that activities can never be observed or focused upon or approached DIRECTLY. Or are mental (events) expressed actions that can be directly observed (as gestures) and are animated phenomena and we have the potential capacity to enter into reciprocal inter (or intra) subjective mental (events) A third notion of mental (events) is that they are not invisible activities nor inter/intra ACTIONS which express invisible activities but mental (events) actually reside within the interior of each person guiding our actions and tool use. In other words are mental (events) emergent phenomena that emerge through invisible activities observed within our animated actions. Or are mental (events) the inter (or intra) ACTIONS which express the actual invisible activities. Or are mental (events) orienting within interior places (inside our head or body). I am not clear where mental (events) are located? It seems to depend on where we locate animating phenomena. My bias appreciates Rod and Mike speculating that primary intersubjevtivity as a place to enter the development of mental (events) Larry -----Original Message----- From: "Huw Lloyd" Sent: ?2015-?09-?11 7:11 AM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change Martin, What does it mean to state that a developmental being lacks some faculty that is potentially available to them? It seems to me it either means that this faculty lacks sophistication (and that it is then technically incorrect to say that they lack the faculty per se) or that the claimant is making a logical fallacy by applying idioms of formal logic to a genetic or developmental domain. Why should a nascent, genetically conceived ToM be something that is interior? Best, Huw On 11 September 2015 at 14:20, Martin John Packer wrote: > David, Carol, > > Why not attribute a theory of mind to infants? > > First, because it seems extraordinary to suggest that infants are > capable of forming theories. Piaget certainly never suggested that > sensorimotor intelligence involved the forming of theories. Vygotsky > argued that infants are incapable of verbal thinking, which would also > seem to rule out the ability to form theories. > > Second, because there is no reason to think that infants know anything > at all about mental states such as beliefs and desires. Piaget didn't > attribute such knowledge to infants. Vygotsky argued that children are > not aware of their own 'interiority' until around school age, and if > this is the case it is hard to see how they could know about the > interiority of other people. > > Third, the researcher responsible for identifying the phenomena of > primary intersubjectivity, Colwyn Trevarthen, does not explain it in > terms of theory of mind. > > Martin > > > ________________________________ [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form. From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Fri Sep 11 08:28:28 2015 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:28:28 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change In-Reply-To: References: <001e01d0ea50$87179fa0$9546dee0$@att.net> <55f1a7c8.65de420a.f21ad.2cdb@mx.google.com> <0E34DE9E-8CC9-480F-B7FA-380A093B9C3F@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: Huw, I was assuming that a mind, if it exists, is 'interior.' If I lack a faculty that I have the potential to acquire, then I would say that I have the potential, but not the faculty. So an infant may have the potential for theory of mind (if we assume that this is how adults understand other people, which is open to question), but not this particular faculty. Am I missing something? Martin On Sep 11, 2015, at 9:09 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > Martin, > > What does it mean to state that a developmental being lacks some faculty > that is potentially available to them? It seems to me it either means that > this faculty lacks sophistication (and that it is then technically > incorrect to say that they lack the faculty per se) or that the claimant is > making a logical fallacy by applying idioms of formal logic to a genetic or > developmental domain. > > Why should a nascent, genetically conceived ToM be something that is > interior? > > Best, > Huw > > > > > On 11 September 2015 at 14:20, Martin John Packer > wrote: > >> David, Carol, >> >> Why not attribute a theory of mind to infants? >> >> First, because it seems extraordinary to suggest that infants are capable >> of forming theories. Piaget certainly never suggested that sensorimotor >> intelligence involved the forming of theories. Vygotsky argued that infants >> are incapable of verbal thinking, which would also seem to rule out the >> ability to form theories. >> >> Second, because there is no reason to think that infants know anything at >> all about mental states such as beliefs and desires. Piaget didn't >> attribute such knowledge to infants. Vygotsky argued that children are not >> aware of their own 'interiority' until around school age, and if this is >> the case it is hard to see how they could know about the interiority of >> other people. >> >> Third, the researcher responsible for identifying the phenomena of primary >> intersubjectivity, Colwyn Trevarthen, does not explain it in terms of >> theory of mind. >> >> Martin >> >> >> From lpscholar2@gmail.com Fri Sep 11 10:20:50 2015 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:20:50 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change In-Reply-To: <24A90C89-D0AB-403E-BB50-BDA59456C498@gmail.com> References: <001e01d0ea50$87179fa0$9546dee0$@att.net> <55f1a7c8.65de420a.f21ad.2cdb@mx.google.com> <24A90C89-D0AB-403E-BB50-BDA59456C498@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55f30d8a.e9fb420a.3a6d5.3715@mx.google.com> Henry, I want to return to your dissertation where development seemed linked to *decontextualization" and segment in order to acquire *systematic* (and possibly conscious) CONTROL. How do you respond to van Oers who questions the adequacy of the notion of (de)contextualization. He is making a case for (re) contextualization as more accurately describing development as what I might term meta(contextual). Contextualizing previous contexts -----Original Message----- From: "HENRY SHONERD" Sent: ?2015-?09-?10 5:09 PM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change Mike and David, This may be a diversion from what you are getting at regarding intersubjectivity, but I was web surfing on the "fallacy of decontextualized measurement?. I came up with the attached article in Mind, Culture and Activity by Bert van Oers. ( I believe it was originally published in 1998 then appeared on line in Mind, Culture and Activity in 2009.Interestingly the title is misspelled in the heading that precedes the article, changing decontextualization to detextualization. A Freudian slip?) van Oers is pushing back on Wertsch?s construal of decontextualization. What makes me think this article is one David might have been thinking of was the shoe measurement game documented in the article. The article raises, for me, the issue of the relationship between learning and development at any age, in school or out. Many years ago, my dissertation on L2 learning focused on such learning strategies as vocabulary memorization, which I take to be a form of decontextualization and potentially useful for the use of L2 for real time communication. It seems to me that, if the application is successful, you are moving from learning to development. Even L1 development shows signs of metalinguistic awareness at an early age: the ability to segment and decontextualize the flow of speech. Babbling, which profiles the phonological potential of language, is apparently ?wired in?: even profoundly deaf children do it, though babbling dies out in deaf children. Evidently there is controversy as to whether babbling in infants is continuous with the articulation later on of speech. If this is not entirely off topic, I wonder if anyone wants to comment. Henry From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Fri Sep 11 10:25:15 2015 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:25:15 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change In-Reply-To: References: <001e01d0ea50$87179fa0$9546dee0$@att.net> <55f1a7c8.65de420a.f21ad.2cdb@mx.google.com> <0E34DE9E-8CC9-480F-B7FA-380A093B9C3F@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: Martin, I suspect what can be missed is the awareness of the consequences of logical mode... Some problems stemming from this are: 1. A tendency to assume the object is continuously present, i.e. to have some continuously available faculty that was previously absent. 2. A tendency to drift from a descriptive object based upon the formal properties to a 'defined' one. Someone without an appreciation for genetic/developmental logic may easily assume that this ToM 'object' is a discrete thing that is independent of its historical development such that at some felicitous age the 'ToM' object pings into existence for the fortunate soul. 3. A tendency to mark as boldly distinct those continuities that may actually be very minor and in many practical circumstances equivalently good enough (e.g. genetic instances of 'theory', pre and post 'ToM'). I think maybe the third point here is perhaps the most nagging one. The formal distinctions seem to exaggerate the differences which may actually be quite similar. Taking as another example your assumption about mind, the notion of a conceived object of interior phenomena as mind is merely a formally conceived one, because one has taken a slice of genetic continuities and treated it as a discrete independent object or, if one hasn't 'sliced' the continuity but is merely denoting an aspect of it, then the object denoted is, as a consequence of its formal properties, of rather limited use and one that cannot be used as a foundation for a definition (other than a descriptive definition). Expanding slightly on the first point, to have a faculty means to have a potential. To have the faculty of flying a plane (or having a ToM), whilst not flying, is to have the potential to reliably fly (or having the potential to reliably exercise a ToM), which seems to be largely a basis of prior exercise. Nevertheless, faculty here (as used in a pragmatic sense) seems to be derived from reliability and precision in the undertaking, not in its potential, even though the faculty remains a potential one even for an experienced practitioner. Hence we see the difference again between two different logical senses in terms of 'faculty'. Best, Huw On 11 September 2015 at 16:28, Martin John Packer wrote: > Huw, > > I was assuming that a mind, if it exists, is 'interior.' > > If I lack a faculty that I have the potential to acquire, then I would say > that I have the potential, but not the faculty. So an infant may have the > potential for theory of mind (if we assume that this is how adults > understand other people, which is open to question), but not this > particular faculty. Am I missing something? > > Martin > > On Sep 11, 2015, at 9:09 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > > Martin, > > > > What does it mean to state that a developmental being lacks some faculty > > that is potentially available to them? It seems to me it either means > that > > this faculty lacks sophistication (and that it is then technically > > incorrect to say that they lack the faculty per se) or that the claimant > is > > making a logical fallacy by applying idioms of formal logic to a genetic > or > > developmental domain. > > > > Why should a nascent, genetically conceived ToM be something that is > > interior? > > > > Best, > > Huw > > > > > > > > > > On 11 September 2015 at 14:20, Martin John Packer < > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> > > wrote: > > > >> David, Carol, > >> > >> Why not attribute a theory of mind to infants? > >> > >> First, because it seems extraordinary to suggest that infants are > capable > >> of forming theories. Piaget certainly never suggested that sensorimotor > >> intelligence involved the forming of theories. Vygotsky argued that > infants > >> are incapable of verbal thinking, which would also seem to rule out the > >> ability to form theories. > >> > >> Second, because there is no reason to think that infants know anything > at > >> all about mental states such as beliefs and desires. Piaget didn't > >> attribute such knowledge to infants. Vygotsky argued that children are > not > >> aware of their own 'interiority' until around school age, and if this is > >> the case it is hard to see how they could know about the interiority of > >> other people. > >> > >> Third, the researcher responsible for identifying the phenomena of > primary > >> intersubjectivity, Colwyn Trevarthen, does not explain it in terms of > >> theory of mind. > >> > >> Martin > >> > >> > >> > > > From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Fri Sep 11 10:53:55 2015 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 17:53:55 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change In-Reply-To: References: <001e01d0ea50$87179fa0$9546dee0$@att.net> <55f1a7c8.65de420a.f21ad.2cdb@mx.google.com> <0E34DE9E-8CC9-480F-B7FA-380A093B9C3F@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: <5ABE767E-4A06-4240-B671-9020F931891C@uniandes.edu.co> Honestly, Huw, I'm not sure if we're in agreement or disagreement! But I'm sure there's the potential for the former! :) Martin On Sep 11, 2015, at 12:25 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > Martin, > > I suspect what can be missed is the awareness of the consequences of > logical mode... > > Some problems stemming from this are: > > 1. A tendency to assume the object is continuously present, i.e. to have > some continuously available faculty that was previously absent. > > 2. A tendency to drift from a descriptive object based upon the formal > properties to a 'defined' one. Someone without an appreciation for > genetic/developmental logic may easily assume that this ToM 'object' is a > discrete thing that is independent of its historical development such that > at some felicitous age the 'ToM' object pings into existence for the > fortunate soul. > > 3. A tendency to mark as boldly distinct those continuities that may > actually be very minor and in many practical circumstances equivalently > good enough (e.g. genetic instances of 'theory', pre and post 'ToM'). > > I think maybe the third point here is perhaps the most nagging one. The > formal distinctions seem to exaggerate the differences which may actually > be quite similar. > > Taking as another example your assumption about mind, the notion of a > conceived object of interior phenomena as mind is merely a formally > conceived one, because one has taken a slice of genetic continuities and > treated it as a discrete independent object or, if one hasn't 'sliced' the > continuity but is merely denoting an aspect of it, then the object denoted > is, as a consequence of its formal properties, of rather limited use and > one that cannot be used as a foundation for a definition (other than a > descriptive definition). > > Expanding slightly on the first point, to have a faculty means to have a > potential. To have the faculty of flying a plane (or having a ToM), whilst > not flying, is to have the potential to reliably fly (or having the > potential to reliably exercise a ToM), which seems to be largely a basis of > prior exercise. Nevertheless, faculty here (as used in a pragmatic sense) > seems to be derived from reliability and precision in the undertaking, not > in its potential, even though the faculty remains a potential one even for > an experienced practitioner. Hence we see the difference again between > two different logical senses in terms of 'faculty'. > > Best, > Huw > > > > On 11 September 2015 at 16:28, Martin John Packer > wrote: > >> Huw, >> >> I was assuming that a mind, if it exists, is 'interior.' >> >> If I lack a faculty that I have the potential to acquire, then I would say >> that I have the potential, but not the faculty. So an infant may have the >> potential for theory of mind (if we assume that this is how adults >> understand other people, which is open to question), but not this >> particular faculty. Am I missing something? >> >> Martin >> >> On Sep 11, 2015, at 9:09 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote: >> >>> Martin, >>> >>> What does it mean to state that a developmental being lacks some faculty >>> that is potentially available to them? It seems to me it either means >> that >>> this faculty lacks sophistication (and that it is then technically >>> incorrect to say that they lack the faculty per se) or that the claimant >> is >>> making a logical fallacy by applying idioms of formal logic to a genetic >> or >>> developmental domain. >>> >>> Why should a nascent, genetically conceived ToM be something that is >>> interior? >>> >>> Best, >>> Huw >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11 September 2015 at 14:20, Martin John Packer < >> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> David, Carol, >>>> >>>> Why not attribute a theory of mind to infants? >>>> >>>> First, because it seems extraordinary to suggest that infants are >> capable >>>> of forming theories. Piaget certainly never suggested that sensorimotor >>>> intelligence involved the forming of theories. Vygotsky argued that >> infants >>>> are incapable of verbal thinking, which would also seem to rule out the >>>> ability to form theories. >>>> >>>> Second, because there is no reason to think that infants know anything >> at >>>> all about mental states such as beliefs and desires. Piaget didn't >>>> attribute such knowledge to infants. Vygotsky argued that children are >> not >>>> aware of their own 'interiority' until around school age, and if this is >>>> the case it is hard to see how they could know about the interiority of >>>> other people. >>>> >>>> Third, the researcher responsible for identifying the phenomena of >> primary >>>> intersubjectivity, Colwyn Trevarthen, does not explain it in terms of >>>> theory of mind. >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> From mcole@ucsd.edu Fri Sep 11 11:55:36 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:55:36 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Akhutina on LSV/ARL and neuropsychology Message-ID: An article well worth reading with implications well beyond neuropsych mike -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Akhutina.ARL.LSV.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 254356 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20150911/042393cd/attachment.pdf From mktostes@uol.com.br Fri Sep 11 13:06:24 2015 From: mktostes@uol.com.br (mktostes) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 17:06:24 -0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Akhutina on LSV/ARL and neuropsychology In-Reply-To: ["CAHCnM0D+dx6jx2hA6yCNjWDSbVYkbJnNG+_2T4QsY754W5B07w@mail.gmail.com"] References: ["CAHCnM0D+dx6jx2hA6yCNjWDSbVYkbJnNG+_2T4QsY754W5B07w@mail.gmail.com"] Message-ID: <55f33440d8658_2dda15b62c8b13dc59712@a4-weasel18.mail> From dkellogg60@gmail.com Fri Sep 11 14:43:05 2015 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2015 06:43:05 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change In-Reply-To: <5ABE767E-4A06-4240-B671-9020F931891C@uniandes.edu.co> References: <001e01d0ea50$87179fa0$9546dee0$@att.net> <55f1a7c8.65de420a.f21ad.2cdb@mx.google.com> <0E34DE9E-8CC9-480F-B7FA-380A093B9C3F@uniandes.edu.co> <5ABE767E-4A06-4240-B671-9020F931891C@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: Henry: I enjoyed the van Oers article a lot--the idea of development as the decontextualization of the mediational means has always bothered me. I subscribe to a Hallidayan notion of context: it's not a "whatever" that lies beyond text, but rather a set of things from a situation or from a culture which has been selected for encoding into a semantics. So the crucial element is in indeed meaning, although not in the sense that van Oers uses meaning but more in the sense of "I didn't meant to do it" or "I meant to do it". But...what I did mean to do was not to refer to Wertsch and the fibre glass vaulting pole of the mind but rather to refer to the work that Mike and Sylvia Scribner did in "Culture and Thought" and especially "Psychology of Literacy". Both of these works expose the fallacy of trying measure minds by "decontextualized" means, e.g. the syllogism test that Luria was so interested in. Both of these works point out that tests too are a context: they are just one an unfamiliar one where the ability to select has been usurped by the test taker. You remember J.W. Oller--he was the one who proved that even non-verbal IQ tests are really verbal tests. Every word we still carries the smell of all the other words with which it has collocated and the savour of all the other words with which it has colligated. So what would a non-decontextualized ToM test look like? Here are two, and they both suggest (to me) that the infant actually STARTS from the point of view that affects exist, although they are not necessarily "minds" in the sense of being individualized. The first is a fourteen day old infant, Nigel, with a bad boil on his elbow. He is crying. But as soon as his mother notices the boil, the crying stops. How is this possible? The pain continues. Shouldn't the crying continue too? The second is a set of experiments that Fajans does on infants in a creche in Germany, used by Vygotsky in his "Infancy" chapter (Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 234-235). Fajans discovers that infants do not always decrease their drive for obtaining a particular object as the object moves out of reach (thought they sometimes do). Vygotsky says this is because the infant still does not really understand the limits of his or her own body. Then, with some of the infants who have lost interest in the object, interest is rekindled when another person approaches the object. Vygotsky says this is because the infant has already understood that her or his main way of acting on the world is not directly but with the hands of others. Vygotsky says: ?? ??????????? ????? ? ?????????? ????? ?????????: ? ?????????? ???????? ?????? ?? ??????????. ??????? ???????????? ??????? ????? ?? ?????????? ? ????????????, ??? ? ??????. ?? ??? ?? ? ????? ???? ?? ???????, ??? ?? ?????? ?????????? ? ?????? ????????? ??? ????, ????? ????????? ???????????? ??? ???? ?????. ?? ??????????? ?????????? ? ????????, ???????????? ?? ??????????, ??????? ?? ????, ????? ?? ???? ??????? ? ??? ?? ????, ? ??????? ??????? ???????????? ? ????????, ??? ???. ??????? ????? ????????, ???? ???????????? ? ??????????? ? ?????????, ???????? ????? ?? ??????????? ??????????? ?????, ??? ? ???????, ??????????? ? ???????????????? ???????? ?? ??????? ? ?????????? ? ??????? ??????????? ??????. ?????? ?????, ??? ? ?????? ?????, ????????: ????????? ? ???????? ???? ??? ??????? ??????? ???????????? ?????????? ????? ??????? ???????? ? ? ??????????????? ???????? ???????? ??? ????? ?? ?????????? ? ?????????? ??????????. ?Here we encounter a completely new phenomenon: in the object situation nothing has been changed. The child perceives the object as remote and as inaccessible as before. He is not even to the smallest measure aware that he must seek the help of an adult to get the goal which is unattainable for him. But the affective motivation of the object located at a distance depends on whether this object lies in the same field in which the child perceives the person or not. An object near a person, even if it is unreachable and located at a distance, exerts the same affective motivating force as objects which are located in immediate proximity to the child and attainable by his own effort. This could not be clearer than in what the experiments of Fajans show: the relationship to the external world for a child is wholly defined by the relations to other persons, and the psychological situation of the infant has merged the object and social content. ??? ???????????: 1) ???????? ???????? ???????????? ???? ? 2) ??????????? ??? ???????????? ?????????? ? ????? ?? ??????????? ??????????? ??????????? ???????? ? ?????? ?????????? ??????? ? ????????? ???????????? ?????????? ????-??? ? ???????? ????????. ?????? ?? ??? ? ?????????? ??????? ?????? ? ???????????????? ??????? ???????????????, ??? ? ??????? ??? ??? ???????? ???? ?????? ??????????? ???. ?????? ? ?????????? ??????? ????????? ?? ??, ??? ????? ??????? ??????????? ??????? ??????????? ? ??????? ?? ?????, ??? ??? ??????????????? ???????? ? ?????? ?????????* ?? ?????, ??? ??? ??????? ??????????? ????????, ?? ?????, ??? ? ???????? ???????? ????-???. ?Both considerations?(1) the child?s not knowing his own body and (2) the dependence of his affective attractions to tings on the possibility of sharing lived experience (???????????) of the situation with other persons?wholly and thoroughly confirm the government of the ?Great We? in infant consciousness. The first shows clearly and immediately from the negative side that the child does not yet have any consciousness of his physical ?I?. The second shows from the positive side that the simple affective desire flares up in the child in no other way than in the contact between the object and another person, in no other way than as the condition of psychic contiguity, in no other way than as the condition of ?Great We? consciousness.? ? David Kellogg On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 2:53 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > Honestly, Huw, I'm not sure if we're in agreement or disagreement! > > But I'm sure there's the potential for the former! :) > > Martin > > On Sep 11, 2015, at 12:25 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > > Martin, > > > > I suspect what can be missed is the awareness of the consequences of > > logical mode... > > > > Some problems stemming from this are: > > > > 1. A tendency to assume the object is continuously present, i.e. to have > > some continuously available faculty that was previously absent. > > > > 2. A tendency to drift from a descriptive object based upon the formal > > properties to a 'defined' one. Someone without an appreciation for > > genetic/developmental logic may easily assume that this ToM 'object' is a > > discrete thing that is independent of its historical development such > that > > at some felicitous age the 'ToM' object pings into existence for the > > fortunate soul. > > > > 3. A tendency to mark as boldly distinct those continuities that may > > actually be very minor and in many practical circumstances equivalently > > good enough (e.g. genetic instances of 'theory', pre and post 'ToM'). > > > > I think maybe the third point here is perhaps the most nagging one. The > > formal distinctions seem to exaggerate the differences which may actually > > be quite similar. > > > > Taking as another example your assumption about mind, the notion of a > > conceived object of interior phenomena as mind is merely a formally > > conceived one, because one has taken a slice of genetic continuities and > > treated it as a discrete independent object or, if one hasn't 'sliced' > the > > continuity but is merely denoting an aspect of it, then the object > denoted > > is, as a consequence of its formal properties, of rather limited use and > > one that cannot be used as a foundation for a definition (other than a > > descriptive definition). > > > > Expanding slightly on the first point, to have a faculty means to have a > > potential. To have the faculty of flying a plane (or having a ToM), > whilst > > not flying, is to have the potential to reliably fly (or having the > > potential to reliably exercise a ToM), which seems to be largely a basis > of > > prior exercise. Nevertheless, faculty here (as used in a pragmatic > sense) > > seems to be derived from reliability and precision in the undertaking, > not > > in its potential, even though the faculty remains a potential one even > for > > an experienced practitioner. Hence we see the difference again between > > two different logical senses in terms of 'faculty'. > > > > Best, > > Huw > > > > > > > > On 11 September 2015 at 16:28, Martin John Packer < > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> > > wrote: > > > >> Huw, > >> > >> I was assuming that a mind, if it exists, is 'interior.' > >> > >> If I lack a faculty that I have the potential to acquire, then I would > say > >> that I have the potential, but not the faculty. So an infant may have > the > >> potential for theory of mind (if we assume that this is how adults > >> understand other people, which is open to question), but not this > >> particular faculty. Am I missing something? > >> > >> Martin > >> > >> On Sep 11, 2015, at 9:09 AM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: > >> > >>> Martin, > >>> > >>> What does it mean to state that a developmental being lacks some > faculty > >>> that is potentially available to them? It seems to me it either means > >> that > >>> this faculty lacks sophistication (and that it is then technically > >>> incorrect to say that they lack the faculty per se) or that the > claimant > >> is > >>> making a logical fallacy by applying idioms of formal logic to a > genetic > >> or > >>> developmental domain. > >>> > >>> Why should a nascent, genetically conceived ToM be something that is > >>> interior? > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Huw > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 11 September 2015 at 14:20, Martin John Packer < > >> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> David, Carol, > >>>> > >>>> Why not attribute a theory of mind to infants? > >>>> > >>>> First, because it seems extraordinary to suggest that infants are > >> capable > >>>> of forming theories. Piaget certainly never suggested that > sensorimotor > >>>> intelligence involved the forming of theories. Vygotsky argued that > >> infants > >>>> are incapable of verbal thinking, which would also seem to rule out > the > >>>> ability to form theories. > >>>> > >>>> Second, because there is no reason to think that infants know anything > >> at > >>>> all about mental states such as beliefs and desires. Piaget didn't > >>>> attribute such knowledge to infants. Vygotsky argued that children are > >> not > >>>> aware of their own 'interiority' until around school age, and if this > is > >>>> the case it is hard to see how they could know about the interiority > of > >>>> other people. > >>>> > >>>> Third, the researcher responsible for identifying the phenomena of > >> primary > >>>> intersubjectivity, Colwyn Trevarthen, does not explain it in terms of > >>>> theory of mind. > >>>> > >>>> Martin > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >> > > > From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Fri Sep 11 15:53:58 2015 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 22:53:58 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change In-Reply-To: References: <001e01d0ea50$87179fa0$9546dee0$@att.net> <55f1a7c8.65de420a.f21ad.2cdb@mx.google.com> <0E34DE9E-8CC9-480F-B7FA-380A093B9C3F@uniandes.edu.co> <5ABE767E-4A06-4240-B671-9020F931891C@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: <88667168-64CF-4AF9-9F40-FD737298EB9A@uniandes.edu.co> "Vygotsky says this is because the infant has already understood that her or his main way of acting on the world is not directly but with the hands of others. " "they both suggest (to me) that the infant actually STARTS from the point of view that affects exist, although they are not necessarily "minds" in the sense of being individualized." David, I think you're absolutely right to say that these examples illustrate the central role of emotion in the early interactions (intra-actions) of the infant. But I don't think they show that the infant "understands," or "has a point of view," but rather that the infant lives in an emotional world - no, not even a world, because there are not yet stable objects, or stable others, or stable self - lives *in* his or her emotionality *along with* others. An object becomes interesting again when, although it is still out of reach for the infant, a significant other can reach it, because the infant does *not* yet realize that this other person is someone different from him. An object close to them *is* an object close to him or her, or simply an object 'at hand,' and hence interesting. No? Martin From dkellogg60@gmail.com Fri Sep 11 16:57:01 2015 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2015 08:57:01 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change In-Reply-To: <88667168-64CF-4AF9-9F40-FD737298EB9A@uniandes.edu.co> References: <001e01d0ea50$87179fa0$9546dee0$@att.net> <55f1a7c8.65de420a.f21ad.2cdb@mx.google.com> <0E34DE9E-8CC9-480F-B7FA-380A093B9C3F@uniandes.edu.co> <5ABE767E-4A06-4240-B671-9020F931891C@uniandes.edu.co> <88667168-64CF-4AF9-9F40-FD737298EB9A@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: Yes. But if we say that an Ur-Wir doesn't qualify as a ToM, then ToM debate becomes pointless. Firstly, ToM assumes a Piagetian, affectless mind, and as Vygotsky says affect is the "sputnik" (i.e. the companion god) of every psychic function, even the most intellectual. Secondly, it assumes an entirely individuated mind, and as long as language itself creates the so very many of the desires that it satisfies, such a mind is not possible, not even in adults. That's why I think "intersubjectivity" is far more useful (and more contextualized) measurement. Some people on the list have queried my comments on vegetarianism. I wasn't trying to be flippant, but I think we often talk about the distinction between human intersubjectivity and animal intersubjectivity and the boundary intersubjectivity that is infant intersubjectivity in either in ways that are metaphysical ("soul", or maybe idioculture) or else in ways that suggest that no such "boundary subject" can exist simply because no such boundary exists. But the boundaries exist, and they are visceral, even where they are obviously cultural. In China I would get terrible colds, and my class of doctors, all western trained, would prescribe traditional Chinese medicines (on the grounds that there was no cure, but medicine was a psychological need for a sick organism). One of the things they would prescribe was made from human placenta: too close to cannibalism for my taste. But one of my students, an obstetrician in her twenties with soft moosey eyes and a steely razor tongue, pointed out that most animals eat the placenta right after birth. "Anyway," she asked, "what do you think you ate before you were born?". David Kellogg On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > "Vygotsky says this is > because the infant has already understood that her or his main way of > acting on the world is not directly but with the hands of others. " > > "they both suggest (to me) that the infant actually STARTS from the point > of > view that affects exist, although they are not necessarily "minds" in the > sense of being individualized." > > > David, > > I think you're absolutely right to say that these examples illustrate the > central role of emotion in the early interactions (intra-actions) of the > infant. But I don't think they show that the infant "understands," or "has > a point of view," but rather that the infant lives in an emotional world - > no, not even a world, because there are not yet stable objects, or stable > others, or stable self - lives *in* his or her emotionality *along with* > others. An object becomes interesting again when, although it is still out > of reach for the infant, a significant other can reach it, because the > infant does *not* yet realize that this other person is someone different > from him. An object close to them *is* an object close to him or her, or > simply an object 'at hand,' and hence interesting. > > No? > > Martin > > > > From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Fri Sep 11 17:27:31 2015 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2015 00:27:31 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Dynamics of Developmental Change In-Reply-To: References: <001e01d0ea50$87179fa0$9546dee0$@att.net> <55f1a7c8.65de420a.f21ad.2cdb@mx.google.com> <0E34DE9E-8CC9-480F-B7FA-380A093B9C3F@uniandes.edu.co> <5ABE767E-4A06-4240-B671-9020F931891C@uniandes.edu.co> <88667168-64CF-4AF9-9F40-FD737298EB9A@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: We're in agreement. The ToM debate is pointless. :) Martin On Sep 11, 2015, at 6:57 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Yes. > > But if we say that an Ur-Wir doesn't qualify as a ToM, then ToM debate > becomes pointless. Firstly, ToM assumes a Piagetian, affectless mind, and > as Vygotsky says affect is the "sputnik" (i.e. the companion god) of every > psychic function, even the most intellectual. Secondly, it assumes an > entirely individuated mind, and as long as language itself creates the so > very many of the desires that it satisfies, such a mind is not possible, > not even in adults. > > That's why I think "intersubjectivity" is far more useful (and more > contextualized) measurement. Some people on the list have queried my > comments on vegetarianism. I wasn't trying to be flippant, but I think we > often talk about the distinction between human intersubjectivity and animal > intersubjectivity and the boundary intersubjectivity that is infant > intersubjectivity in either in ways that are metaphysical ("soul", or maybe > idioculture) or else in ways that suggest that no such "boundary subject" > can exist simply because no such boundary exists. > > But the boundaries exist, and they are visceral, even where they are > obviously cultural. In China I would get terrible colds, and my class of > doctors, all western trained, would prescribe traditional Chinese medicines > (on the grounds that there was no cure, but medicine was a psychological > need for a sick organism). One of the things they would prescribe was made > from human placenta: too close to cannibalism for my taste. But one of my > students, an obstetrician in her twenties with soft moosey eyes and a > steely razor tongue, pointed out that most animals eat the placenta right > after birth. "Anyway," she asked, "what do you think you ate before you > were born?". > > David Kellogg > > On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Martin John Packer > wrote: > >> "Vygotsky says this is >> because the infant has already understood that her or his main way of >> acting on the world is not directly but with the hands of others. " >> >> "they both suggest (to me) that the infant actually STARTS from the point >> of >> view that affects exist, although they are not necessarily "minds" in the >> sense of being individualized." >> >> >> David, >> >> I think you're absolutely right to say that these examples illustrate the >> central role of emotion in the early interactions (intra-actions) of the >> infant. But I don't think they show that the infant "understands," or "has >> a point of view," but rather that the infant lives in an emotional world - >> no, not even a world, because there are not yet stable objects, or stable >> others, or stable self - lives *in* his or her emotionality *along with* >> others. An object becomes interesting again when, although it is still out >> of reach for the infant, a significant other can reach it, because the >> infant does *not* yet realize that this other person is someone different >> from him. An object close to them *is* an object close to him or her, or >> simply an object 'at hand,' and hence interesting. >> >> No? >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Sat Sep 12 15:53:23 2015 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2015 23:53:23 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Akhutina on LSV/ARL and neuropsychology In-Reply-To: <55f33440d8658_2dda15b62c8b13dc59712@a4-weasel18.mail> References: <55f33440d8658_2dda15b62c8b13dc59712@a4-weasel18.mail> Message-ID: Thanks, Mike. On 11 September 2015 at 21:06, mktostes wrote: > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Tue Sep 15 08:33:40 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 08:33:40 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Faculty Position in Moral Development at Penn State In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Only moral people need apply. mike ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Koraly E. Perez-Edgar Date: Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 8:15 AM Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Faculty Position in Moral Development at Penn State To: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org Hello, Please find below information regarding a new open position in moral development at Penn State. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. KPE The Department of Psychology in the College of the Liberal Arts at The Pennsylvania State University (http://psych.la.psu.edu/) announces an open rank, tenure line faculty position in developmental psychology to start in Fall 2016. We seek a candidate with research focused on the dynamics of moral development with a strong preference for candidates who take an interdisciplinary approach with translational implications. Possible areas of research include (but are not limited to) sociocognitive mechanisms of moral development from childhood through adolescence, early social, cognitive, or emotional precursors to moral behavior, the role of culture and context in moral development, and social and educational processes that support moral development. We seek a researcher interested in and committed to participating in an inter-disciplinary community of scholars at Penn State. The candidate will be part of the Child Study Center (CSC; http://csc.psych.psu.edu), which is housed in the Department of Psychology and functions as a university-wide translational research center, supporting advances in developmental science aimed at promoting positive educational, health, and mental health outcomes for children, adolescents, and families. This position is part of a series of co-funded hires in ethics designed to ensure that Penn State becomes a leader in ethics-informed interdisciplinary research and the integration of ethical literacy throughout the Penn State curriculum. This is one of twelve tenure-track appointments funded by the University, through the Rock Ethics Institute (rockethics.psu.edu), to augment the Penn State mission in this important area. We are seeking candidates who will build on the Rock Ethics Institute?s tradition of excellence in collaborative, interdisciplinary ethics research and ethically informed decision support for significant societal issues, as well as their success in integrating ethics into the curriculum. We are looking for individuals who will be effective in working on and leading interdisciplinary teams that embed ethical analysis into research projects including decision support research, and who have experience and interest in integrating ethics in undergraduate and graduate curriculum. Faculty who are hired will be Affiliate Faculty in the Rock Ethics Institute and will receive course releases designed to enhance collaboration with faculty and students on existing ethics research and curricular initiatives as well as building new initiatives and programs in conjunction with the Institute?s mission. Candidates should submit a letter of application, statements of research and teaching interests, a CV and selected (p) reprints. Application materials should include a statement of how the candidate?s work is relevant to the University and Rock vision and how such a position is likely to augment their own work. Please arrange to have three letters of recommendation sent electronically to PsychApplications@psu.edu with the subject line of Moral Development. Review of applications will begin October 1, 2015 and will continue until the position is filled. For questions regarding the application process, contact Mona Muzzio (rvm7@psu.edu). For questions regarding the position, contact Koraly Perez-Edgar (kxp24@psu.edu). Koraly Perez-Edgar McCourtney Family Early Career Professor in Psychology Associate Professor of Psychology Child Study Center 270 Moore Building The Pennsylvania State University University Park PA 16802 kxp24@psu.edu 814-865-9272 www.catlabPSU.com _______________________________________________ To post to the CDS listserv, send your message to: cogdevsoc@lists.cogdevsoc.org (If you belong to the listserv and have not included any large attachments, your message will be posted without moderation--so be careful!) To subscribe or unsubscribe from the listserv, visit: http://lists.cogdevsoc.org/listinfo.cgi/cogdevsoc-cogdevsoc.org -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From preiss.xmca@gmail.com Tue Sep 15 20:00:18 2015 From: preiss.xmca@gmail.com (David Preiss) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 00:00:18 -0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Hitler's World by T. Snyder Message-ID: Colleagues, This brilliant essay will interest many of you, David http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/sep/24/hitlers-world/ From annalisa@unm.edu Tue Sep 15 21:50:55 2015 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 04:50:55 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I hovered in uncertainty to reply, but, um?am I missing something? Honestly, I got more out of watching a toddler play peekaboo with a baby ape: I certainly didn't feel nausea at the end. Oh and by the way, happy new year. From smago@uga.edu Wed Sep 16 03:14:37 2015 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:14:37 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I've read two of Snyder's books and think he's one sharp guy. Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin is essential reading. -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Preiss Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 11:00 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Hitler's World by T. Snyder Colleagues, This brilliant essay will interest many of you, David http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/sep/24/hitlers-world/ From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Wed Sep 16 05:35:10 2015 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:35:10 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The titles don't communicate "essential reading". Perhaps one should consider the argument fluently expressed by Tolstoy first? The extract below is from the second epilogue to Tolstoy's War and Peace ( http://www.planetpdf.com/planetpdf/pdfs/free_ebooks/War_and_Peace_NT.pdf) "If the purpose of history be to give a description of the movement of humanity and of the peoples, the first question- in the absence of a reply to which all the rest will be incomprehensible- is: what is the power that moves peoples? To this, modern history laboriously replies either that Napoleon was a great genius, or that Louis XIV was very proud, or that certain writers wrote certain books. All that may be so and mankind is ready to agree with it, but it is not what was asked. All that would be interesting if we recognized a divine power based on itself and always consistently directing its nations through Napoleons, Louis-es, and writers; but we do not acknowledge such a power, and therefore before speaking about Napoleons, Louis-es, and authors, we ought to be shown the connection existing between these men and the movement of the nations." Best, Huw On 16 September 2015 at 11:14, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > I've read two of Snyder's books and think he's one sharp guy. Bloodlands: > Europe between Hitler and Stalin is essential reading. > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Preiss > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 11:00 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Hitler's World by T. Snyder > > Colleagues, > This brilliant essay will interest many of you, David > > http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/sep/24/hitlers-world/ > > From smago@uga.edu Wed Sep 16 05:55:09 2015 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 12:55:09 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Can't tell a book by its title. Snyder's got a ton of relatively recently released historical archival material that Tolstoy didn't have available. -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Huw Lloyd Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 8:35 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder The titles don't communicate "essential reading". Perhaps one should consider the argument fluently expressed by Tolstoy first? The extract below is from the second epilogue to Tolstoy's War and Peace ( http://www.planetpdf.com/planetpdf/pdfs/free_ebooks/War_and_Peace_NT.pdf) "If the purpose of history be to give a description of the movement of humanity and of the peoples, the first question- in the absence of a reply to which all the rest will be incomprehensible- is: what is the power that moves peoples? To this, modern history laboriously replies either that Napoleon was a great genius, or that Louis XIV was very proud, or that certain writers wrote certain books. All that may be so and mankind is ready to agree with it, but it is not what was asked. All that would be interesting if we recognized a divine power based on itself and always consistently directing its nations through Napoleons, Louis-es, and writers; but we do not acknowledge such a power, and therefore before speaking about Napoleons, Louis-es, and authors, we ought to be shown the connection existing between these men and the movement of the nations." Best, Huw On 16 September 2015 at 11:14, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > I've read two of Snyder's books and think he's one sharp guy. Bloodlands: > Europe between Hitler and Stalin is essential reading. > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David > xmca-l-bounces+Preiss > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 11:00 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Hitler's World by T. Snyder > > Colleagues, > This brilliant essay will interest many of you, David > > http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/sep/24/hitlers-world/ > > From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Wed Sep 16 06:03:17 2015 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:03:17 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 16 September 2015 at 13:55, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > Can't tell a book by its title. Snyder's got a ton of relatively recently > released historical archival material that Tolstoy didn't have available. > I thought the argument was quite clear, Peter. Does Snyder address "the connection existing between these men (Hitler, Stalin) and the movement of the nations"? Huw > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Huw Lloyd > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 8:35 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder > > The titles don't communicate "essential reading". Perhaps one should > consider the argument fluently expressed by Tolstoy first? The extract > below is from the second epilogue to Tolstoy's War and Peace ( > http://www.planetpdf.com/planetpdf/pdfs/free_ebooks/War_and_Peace_NT.pdf) > > "If the purpose of history be to give a description of the movement of > humanity and of the peoples, the first question- in the absence of a reply > to which all the rest will be incomprehensible- is: what is the power that > moves peoples? To this, modern history laboriously replies either that > Napoleon was a great genius, or that Louis XIV was very proud, or that > certain writers wrote certain books. > > All that may be so and mankind is ready to agree with it, but it is not > what was asked. All that would be interesting if we recognized a divine > power based on itself and always consistently directing its nations through > Napoleons, Louis-es, and writers; but we do not acknowledge such a power, > and therefore before speaking about Napoleons, Louis-es, and authors, we > ought to be shown the connection existing between these men and the > movement of the nations." > > Best, > Huw > > On 16 September 2015 at 11:14, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > > > I've read two of Snyder's books and think he's one sharp guy. Bloodlands: > > Europe between Hitler and Stalin is essential reading. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David > > xmca-l-bounces+Preiss > > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 11:00 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Hitler's World by T. Snyder > > > > Colleagues, > > This brilliant essay will interest many of you, David > > > > http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/sep/24/hitlers-world/ > > > > > > From smago@uga.edu Wed Sep 16 06:15:09 2015 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:15:09 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes. -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Huw Lloyd Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 9:03 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder On 16 September 2015 at 13:55, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > Can't tell a book by its title. Snyder's got a ton of relatively > recently released historical archival material that Tolstoy didn't have available. > I thought the argument was quite clear, Peter. Does Snyder address "the connection existing between these men (Hitler, Stalin) and the movement of the nations"? Huw > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Huw Lloyd > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 8:35 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder > > The titles don't communicate "essential reading". Perhaps one should > consider the argument fluently expressed by Tolstoy first? The > extract below is from the second epilogue to Tolstoy's War and Peace ( > http://www.planetpdf.com/planetpdf/pdfs/free_ebooks/War_and_Peace_NT.p > df) > > "If the purpose of history be to give a description of the movement of > humanity and of the peoples, the first question- in the absence of a > reply to which all the rest will be incomprehensible- is: what is the > power that moves peoples? To this, modern history laboriously replies > either that Napoleon was a great genius, or that Louis XIV was very > proud, or that certain writers wrote certain books. > > All that may be so and mankind is ready to agree with it, but it is > not what was asked. All that would be interesting if we recognized a > divine power based on itself and always consistently directing its > nations through Napoleons, Louis-es, and writers; but we do not > acknowledge such a power, and therefore before speaking about > Napoleons, Louis-es, and authors, we ought to be shown the connection > existing between these men and the movement of the nations." > > Best, > Huw > > On 16 September 2015 at 11:14, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > > > I've read two of Snyder's books and think he's one sharp guy. Bloodlands: > > Europe between Hitler and Stalin is essential reading. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David > > xmca-l-bounces+Preiss > > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 11:00 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Hitler's World by T. Snyder > > > > Colleagues, > > This brilliant essay will interest many of you, David > > > > http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/sep/24/hitlers-world/ > > > > > > From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Wed Sep 16 06:27:44 2015 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:27:44 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Interesting. Would anyone like to describe the degree of the connection addressed? For that is what I'd take to be the principal basis of "brilliance" in this context. Huw On 16 September 2015 at 14:15, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > Yes. > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Huw Lloyd > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 9:03 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder > > On 16 September 2015 at 13:55, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > > > Can't tell a book by its title. Snyder's got a ton of relatively > > recently released historical archival material that Tolstoy didn't have > available. > > > > I thought the argument was quite clear, Peter. Does Snyder address "the > connection existing between these men (Hitler, Stalin) and the movement of > the nations"? > > Huw > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Huw Lloyd > > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 8:35 AM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder > > > > The titles don't communicate "essential reading". Perhaps one should > > consider the argument fluently expressed by Tolstoy first? The > > extract below is from the second epilogue to Tolstoy's War and Peace ( > > http://www.planetpdf.com/planetpdf/pdfs/free_ebooks/War_and_Peace_NT.p > > df) > > > > "If the purpose of history be to give a description of the movement of > > humanity and of the peoples, the first question- in the absence of a > > reply to which all the rest will be incomprehensible- is: what is the > > power that moves peoples? To this, modern history laboriously replies > > either that Napoleon was a great genius, or that Louis XIV was very > > proud, or that certain writers wrote certain books. > > > > All that may be so and mankind is ready to agree with it, but it is > > not what was asked. All that would be interesting if we recognized a > > divine power based on itself and always consistently directing its > > nations through Napoleons, Louis-es, and writers; but we do not > > acknowledge such a power, and therefore before speaking about > > Napoleons, Louis-es, and authors, we ought to be shown the connection > > existing between these men and the movement of the nations." > > > > Best, > > Huw > > > > On 16 September 2015 at 11:14, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > > > > > I've read two of Snyder's books and think he's one sharp guy. > Bloodlands: > > > Europe between Hitler and Stalin is essential reading. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David > > > xmca-l-bounces+Preiss > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 11:00 PM > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Hitler's World by T. Snyder > > > > > > Colleagues, > > > This brilliant essay will interest many of you, David > > > > > > http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/sep/24/hitlers-world/ > > > > > > > > > > > > From smago@uga.edu Wed Sep 16 06:43:50 2015 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:43:50 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Not enough time here to answer this question in the detail it merits. Google reviews of Bloodlands and you get plenty of connections. -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Huw Lloyd Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 9:28 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder Interesting. Would anyone like to describe the degree of the connection addressed? For that is what I'd take to be the principal basis of "brilliance" in this context. Huw On 16 September 2015 at 14:15, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > Yes. > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Huw Lloyd > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 9:03 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder > > On 16 September 2015 at 13:55, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > > > Can't tell a book by its title. Snyder's got a ton of relatively > > recently released historical archival material that Tolstoy didn't > > have > available. > > > > I thought the argument was quite clear, Peter. Does Snyder address > "the connection existing between these men (Hitler, Stalin) and the > movement of the nations"? > > Huw > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Huw > > xmca-l-bounces+Lloyd > > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 8:35 AM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder > > > > The titles don't communicate "essential reading". Perhaps one > > should consider the argument fluently expressed by Tolstoy first? > > The extract below is from the second epilogue to Tolstoy's War and > > Peace ( > > http://www.planetpdf.com/planetpdf/pdfs/free_ebooks/War_and_Peace_NT > > .p > > df) > > > > "If the purpose of history be to give a description of the movement > > of humanity and of the peoples, the first question- in the absence > > of a reply to which all the rest will be incomprehensible- is: what > > is the power that moves peoples? To this, modern history laboriously > > replies either that Napoleon was a great genius, or that Louis XIV > > was very proud, or that certain writers wrote certain books. > > > > All that may be so and mankind is ready to agree with it, but it is > > not what was asked. All that would be interesting if we recognized a > > divine power based on itself and always consistently directing its > > nations through Napoleons, Louis-es, and writers; but we do not > > acknowledge such a power, and therefore before speaking about > > Napoleons, Louis-es, and authors, we ought to be shown the > > connection existing between these men and the movement of the nations." > > > > Best, > > Huw > > > > On 16 September 2015 at 11:14, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > > > > > I've read two of Snyder's books and think he's one sharp guy. > Bloodlands: > > > Europe between Hitler and Stalin is essential reading. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > > xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David > > > xmca-l-bounces+Preiss > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 11:00 PM > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Hitler's World by T. Snyder > > > > > > Colleagues, > > > This brilliant essay will interest many of you, David > > > > > > http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/sep/24/hitlers-world > > > / > > > > > > > > > > > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Sep 16 07:02:21 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 07:02:21 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ?Peekaboo, not Hitler's view of the world, is the topic thread here. mike? On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > I hovered in uncertainty to reply, but, um?am I missing something? > > Honestly, I got more out of watching a toddler play peekaboo with a baby > ape: I certainly didn't feel nausea at the end. > > Oh and by the way, happy new year. > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Wed Sep 16 07:32:23 2015 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:32:23 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Peekaboo is the difference between comedy and tragedy. Huw On 16 September 2015 at 15:02, mike cole wrote: > ?Peekaboo, not Hitler's view of the world, is the topic thread here. > > mike? > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Annalisa Aguilar > wrote: > > > I hovered in uncertainty to reply, but, um?am I missing something? > > > > Honestly, I got more out of watching a toddler play peekaboo with a baby > > ape: I certainly didn't feel nausea at the end. > > > > Oh and by the way, happy new year. > > > > > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > From hshonerd@gmail.com Wed Sep 16 09:04:20 2015 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:04:20 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8101C5DE-3B38-4DA5-A359-31B62051FC54@gmail.com> This thread is enough to make a Buddhist out of one. With Peekaboo we?re back to Annalisa?s video of the child and the baby gorilla at the zoo playing peekaboo. I googled ?peekaboo? and found that it ?...is thought by developmental psychologists to demonstrate an infant's inability to understand object permanence .? Am I wrong, or isn?t Heisenberg showing us that it?s impossible to prove such permanence? There?s no there there. As well, the ?God particle? is no particle at all. It?s a field. Then there?s the closing of each of Mike?s posts from Boesch: "It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history.? Thanks to Huw for Tolstoy. War and Peace challenges (some) conceptions of freedom and human agency. So does the quote from Boesch that ends each of Mike?s posts. But doesn?t Snyder point precisely to the failure of Hitler?s nihilistic project to come to terms with Boesch?s dilemma? I guess I?m pointing here myself to the crises of psychology that are at the heart of Vygotsky?s work. And, aren?t comedy and tragedy both figure and ground to one another? Back to Buddhism. Or am I totally off thread and off my rocker? Henry > On Sep 16, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > Peekaboo is the difference between comedy and tragedy. > > Huw > > On 16 September 2015 at 15:02, mike cole wrote: > >> ?Peekaboo, not Hitler's view of the world, is the topic thread here. >> >> mike? >> >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Annalisa Aguilar >> wrote: >> >>> I hovered in uncertainty to reply, but, um?am I missing something? >>> >>> Honestly, I got more out of watching a toddler play peekaboo with a baby >>> ape: I certainly didn't feel nausea at the end. >>> >>> Oh and by the way, happy new year. >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an >> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >> From preiss.xmca@gmail.com Wed Sep 16 12:59:48 2015 From: preiss.xmca@gmail.com (David Preiss) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:59:48 -0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder In-Reply-To: <8101C5DE-3B38-4DA5-A359-31B62051FC54@gmail.com> References: <8101C5DE-3B38-4DA5-A359-31B62051FC54@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear colleagues, I am sorry. I can't follow your thoughts. I just think that the essay is informative and worth reading. I liked two ideas of the essay: -The brute notion of nature adopted by Hitler, a strange mix of pseudo-darwinism and, maybe, pseudo-romanticism? In some way it is a naturalisation of culture as well. -The paradoxical relationship Hitler established with science (or technology) and how he understood the relationship between science and nature. Technology was part and parcel of nature, ethical thinking not. It is shocking how such strange blend of ideas could be used to rationalise the extermination of the family of my grandparents and be adopted by such a large amount of presumed civilised and educated people to support the criminals that took over Germany 80 years ago. When we see what is going on in Syria and Iraq these days, one wonders what is the strange combination of ideas driving human beings to massacre each other in a genocidal way again and how those ideas are not adequately challenged by all of those that witness the events. David On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 1:04 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > This thread is enough to make a Buddhist out of one. > > With Peekaboo we?re back to Annalisa?s video of the child and the baby > gorilla at the zoo playing peekaboo. I googled ?peekaboo? and found that it > ?...is thought by developmental psychologists < > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology> to demonstrate an > infant's inability to understand object permanence < > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence>.? Am I wrong, or isn?t > Heisenberg showing us that it?s impossible to prove such permanence? > There?s no there there. As well, the ?God particle? is no particle at all. > It?s a field. Then there?s the closing of each of Mike?s posts from Boesch: > "It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object that creates history.? > > Thanks to Huw for Tolstoy. War and Peace challenges (some) conceptions of > freedom and human agency. So does the quote from Boesch that ends each of > Mike?s posts. But doesn?t Snyder point precisely to the failure of Hitler?s > nihilistic project to come to terms with Boesch?s dilemma? I guess I?m > pointing here myself to the crises of psychology that are at the heart of > Vygotsky?s work. > > And, aren?t comedy and tragedy both figure and ground to one another? Back > to Buddhism. Or am I totally off thread and off my rocker? > > Henry > > > > > > On Sep 16, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: > > > > Peekaboo is the difference between comedy and tragedy. > > > > Huw > > > > On 16 September 2015 at 15:02, mike cole wrote: > > > >> ?Peekaboo, not Hitler's view of the world, is the topic thread here. > >> > >> mike? > >> > >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Annalisa Aguilar > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I hovered in uncertainty to reply, but, um?am I missing something? > >>> > >>> Honestly, I got more out of watching a toddler play peekaboo with a > baby > >>> ape: I certainly didn't feel nausea at the end. > >>> > >>> Oh and by the way, happy new year. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > >> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >> > > From dkirsh@lsu.edu Wed Sep 16 13:55:51 2015 From: dkirsh@lsu.edu (David H Kirshner) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 20:55:51 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder In-Reply-To: References: <8101C5DE-3B38-4DA5-A359-31B62051FC54@gmail.com> Message-ID: David, I found opening of this window into Hitler's thinking to be very revealing. In the past Hitler has been a black box to me, a stimulus to my response of revulsion, a compelling lunatic whose emotive compulsion against the Jews was contagious. Now I see that Hitler was a man of ideas--mostly incoherent ideas, but ideas nonetheless. My takeaway from the article is that in the end Hitler's ideas were not persuasive. In fact, he was inconsistent and somewhat opportunistic in his framing of his ideas. But, importantly, he signified to the German people as a leader who was guided by ideas, and whose anger and hatred toward the Jews was justified by ideas, notwithstanding that few people had any real understanding of what these ideas might be. This made him potent as a leader far beyond what he could have achieved had his hatred and compulsion against the Jews been seen in purely emotional terms. He is a testament not to the power of ideas, but to the power of the idea of ideas. David -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+dkirsh=lsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+dkirsh=lsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Preiss Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 3:00 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder Dear colleagues, I am sorry. I can't follow your thoughts. I just think that the essay is informative and worth reading. I liked two ideas of the essay: -The brute notion of nature adopted by Hitler, a strange mix of pseudo-darwinism and, maybe, pseudo-romanticism? In some way it is a naturalisation of culture as well. -The paradoxical relationship Hitler established with science (or technology) and how he understood the relationship between science and nature. Technology was part and parcel of nature, ethical thinking not. It is shocking how such strange blend of ideas could be used to rationalise the extermination of the family of my grandparents and be adopted by such a large amount of presumed civilised and educated people to support the criminals that took over Germany 80 years ago. When we see what is going on in Syria and Iraq these days, one wonders what is the strange combination of ideas driving human beings to massacre each other in a genocidal way again and how those ideas are not adequately challenged by all of those that witness the events. David On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 1:04 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > This thread is enough to make a Buddhist out of one. > > With Peekaboo we?re back to Annalisa?s video of the child and the baby > gorilla at the zoo playing peekaboo. I googled ?peekaboo? and found > that it ?...is thought by developmental psychologists < > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology> to demonstrate > an infant's inability to understand object permanence < > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence>.? Am I wrong, or > isn?t Heisenberg showing us that it?s impossible to prove such permanence? > There?s no there there. As well, the ?God particle? is no particle at all. > It?s a field. Then there?s the closing of each of Mike?s posts from Boesch: > "It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object that creates history.? > > Thanks to Huw for Tolstoy. War and Peace challenges (some) conceptions > of freedom and human agency. So does the quote from Boesch that ends > each of Mike?s posts. But doesn?t Snyder point precisely to the > failure of Hitler?s nihilistic project to come to terms with Boesch?s > dilemma? I guess I?m pointing here myself to the crises of psychology > that are at the heart of Vygotsky?s work. > > And, aren?t comedy and tragedy both figure and ground to one another? > Back to Buddhism. Or am I totally off thread and off my rocker? > > Henry > > > > > > On Sep 16, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: > > > > Peekaboo is the difference between comedy and tragedy. > > > > Huw > > > > On 16 September 2015 at 15:02, mike cole wrote: > > > >> ?Peekaboo, not Hitler's view of the world, is the topic thread here. > >> > >> mike? > >> > >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Annalisa Aguilar > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I hovered in uncertainty to reply, but, um?am I missing something? > >>> > >>> Honestly, I got more out of watching a toddler play peekaboo with > >>> a > baby > >>> ape: I certainly didn't feel nausea at the end. > >>> > >>> Oh and by the way, happy new year. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with > >> an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >> > > From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Wed Sep 16 14:01:58 2015 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:01:58 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder In-Reply-To: References: <8101C5DE-3B38-4DA5-A359-31B62051FC54@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi David, Your last paragraph concerns "what is the power that moves peoples?". This is the criteria which, I believe, qualifies a historical account of a pan-continental kind to be of a high standard, i.e. it doesn't merely describe, it seeks to explain, which is what the Tolstoy quotes were concerning. As I understand it, the 'educated and civilized' people of Germany did not adopt these ideas, but rather suffered them. Interestingly with respect to rational responses, Jung thought of rationality as a very feeble defense against the tide of social attitudes engulfing Germany at the time. We do not really need to look to the extremes to see this at work. A mere refusal to sing a royal national anthem can enrage those in its thrall, as we see with labour's first glimmers of liberal leadership from Jeremy Corbyn (see http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/sep/16/jeremy-corbyn-and-the-national-anthem-a-press-chorus-of-disapproval ). Best, Huw On 16 September 2015 at 20:59, David Preiss wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > I am sorry. I can't follow your thoughts. I just think that the essay is > informative and worth reading. I liked two ideas of the essay: > > -The brute notion of nature adopted by Hitler, a strange mix of > pseudo-darwinism and, maybe, pseudo-romanticism? In some way it is a > naturalisation of culture as well. > > -The paradoxical relationship Hitler established with science (or > technology) and how he understood the relationship between science and > nature. Technology was part and parcel of nature, ethical thinking not. > > It is shocking how such strange blend of ideas could be used to rationalise > the extermination of the family of my grandparents and be adopted by such a > large amount of presumed civilised and educated people to support the > criminals that took over Germany 80 years ago. > > When we see what is going on in Syria and Iraq these days, one wonders what > is the strange combination of ideas driving human beings to massacre each > other in a genocidal way again and how those ideas are not adequately > challenged by all of those that witness the events. > > David > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 1:04 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > > This thread is enough to make a Buddhist out of one. > > > > With Peekaboo we?re back to Annalisa?s video of the child and the baby > > gorilla at the zoo playing peekaboo. I googled ?peekaboo? and found that > it > > ?...is thought by developmental psychologists < > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology> to demonstrate > an > > infant's inability to understand object permanence < > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence>.? Am I wrong, or isn?t > > Heisenberg showing us that it?s impossible to prove such permanence? > > There?s no there there. As well, the ?God particle? is no particle at > all. > > It?s a field. Then there?s the closing of each of Mike?s posts from > Boesch: > > "It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > > object that creates history.? > > > > Thanks to Huw for Tolstoy. War and Peace challenges (some) conceptions of > > freedom and human agency. So does the quote from Boesch that ends each of > > Mike?s posts. But doesn?t Snyder point precisely to the failure of > Hitler?s > > nihilistic project to come to terms with Boesch?s dilemma? I guess I?m > > pointing here myself to the crises of psychology that are at the heart of > > Vygotsky?s work. > > > > And, aren?t comedy and tragedy both figure and ground to one another? > Back > > to Buddhism. Or am I totally off thread and off my rocker? > > > > Henry > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 16, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Huw Lloyd > > wrote: > > > > > > Peekaboo is the difference between comedy and tragedy. > > > > > > Huw > > > > > > On 16 September 2015 at 15:02, mike cole wrote: > > > > > >> ?Peekaboo, not Hitler's view of the world, is the topic thread here. > > >> > > >> mike? > > >> > > >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Annalisa Aguilar > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> I hovered in uncertainty to reply, but, um?am I missing something? > > >>> > > >>> Honestly, I got more out of watching a toddler play peekaboo with a > > baby > > >>> ape: I certainly didn't feel nausea at the end. > > >>> > > >>> Oh and by the way, happy new year. > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> > > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > > >> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > >> > > > > > From smago@uga.edu Wed Sep 16 14:22:59 2015 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:22:59 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder In-Reply-To: References: <8101C5DE-3B38-4DA5-A359-31B62051FC54@gmail.com> Message-ID: David, do you think that it was his incoherent ideas, or our guns, that led to his defeat? -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David H Kirshner Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 4:56 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder David, I found opening of this window into Hitler's thinking to be very revealing. In the past Hitler has been a black box to me, a stimulus to my response of revulsion, a compelling lunatic whose emotive compulsion against the Jews was contagious. Now I see that Hitler was a man of ideas--mostly incoherent ideas, but ideas nonetheless. My takeaway from the article is that in the end Hitler's ideas were not persuasive. In fact, he was inconsistent and somewhat opportunistic in his framing of his ideas. But, importantly, he signified to the German people as a leader who was guided by ideas, and whose anger and hatred toward the Jews was justified by ideas, notwithstanding that few people had any real understanding of what these ideas might be. This made him potent as a leader far beyond what he could have achieved had his hatred and compulsion against the Jews been seen in purely emotional terms. He is a testament not to the power of ideas, but to the power of the idea of ideas. David -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+dkirsh=lsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+dkirsh=lsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Preiss Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 3:00 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder Dear colleagues, I am sorry. I can't follow your thoughts. I just think that the essay is informative and worth reading. I liked two ideas of the essay: -The brute notion of nature adopted by Hitler, a strange mix of pseudo-darwinism and, maybe, pseudo-romanticism? In some way it is a naturalisation of culture as well. -The paradoxical relationship Hitler established with science (or technology) and how he understood the relationship between science and nature. Technology was part and parcel of nature, ethical thinking not. It is shocking how such strange blend of ideas could be used to rationalise the extermination of the family of my grandparents and be adopted by such a large amount of presumed civilised and educated people to support the criminals that took over Germany 80 years ago. When we see what is going on in Syria and Iraq these days, one wonders what is the strange combination of ideas driving human beings to massacre each other in a genocidal way again and how those ideas are not adequately challenged by all of those that witness the events. David On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 1:04 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > This thread is enough to make a Buddhist out of one. > > With Peekaboo we?re back to Annalisa?s video of the child and the baby > gorilla at the zoo playing peekaboo. I googled ?peekaboo? and found > that it ?...is thought by developmental psychologists < > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology> to demonstrate > an infant's inability to understand object permanence < > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence>.? Am I wrong, or > isn?t Heisenberg showing us that it?s impossible to prove such permanence? > There?s no there there. As well, the ?God particle? is no particle at all. > It?s a field. Then there?s the closing of each of Mike?s posts from Boesch: > "It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object that creates history.? > > Thanks to Huw for Tolstoy. War and Peace challenges (some) conceptions > of freedom and human agency. So does the quote from Boesch that ends > each of Mike?s posts. But doesn?t Snyder point precisely to the > failure of Hitler?s nihilistic project to come to terms with Boesch?s > dilemma? I guess I?m pointing here myself to the crises of psychology > that are at the heart of Vygotsky?s work. > > And, aren?t comedy and tragedy both figure and ground to one another? > Back to Buddhism. Or am I totally off thread and off my rocker? > > Henry > > > > > > On Sep 16, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: > > > > Peekaboo is the difference between comedy and tragedy. > > > > Huw > > > > On 16 September 2015 at 15:02, mike cole wrote: > > > >> ?Peekaboo, not Hitler's view of the world, is the topic thread here. > >> > >> mike? > >> > >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Annalisa Aguilar > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I hovered in uncertainty to reply, but, um?am I missing something? > >>> > >>> Honestly, I got more out of watching a toddler play peekaboo with > >>> a > baby > >>> ape: I certainly didn't feel nausea at the end. > >>> > >>> Oh and by the way, happy new year. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with > >> an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >> > > From smago@uga.edu Wed Sep 16 14:34:29 2015 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:34:29 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] =?windows-1252?q?FW=3A_Hitler=92s_World_by_Timothy_Snyder_=7C_Th?= =?windows-1252?q?e_New_York_Review_of_Books?= In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: More from Snyder, if you?re interested. p http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/opinion/sunday/the-next-genocide.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share ________________________________ From: Peter Smagorinsky Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 3:03 PM To: Joel A Taxel Subject: FW: Hitler?s World by Timothy Snyder | The New York Review of Books David is a Chilean Jew. I finally get what made Hitler tick. From: David Preiss [mailto:daviddpreiss@me.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 10:43 PM To: Peter Smagorinsky; mike cole Subject: Hitler?s World by Timothy Snyder | The New York Review of Books Snyder is always smart and original when talking about these issues. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/sep/24/hitlers-world/ From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Wed Sep 16 15:03:37 2015 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:03:37 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] peek-a-boo Message-ID: Seems quite sane to me, Henry. peekaboo (n.) [image: Look up peekaboo at Dictionary.com] also peek-a-boo, as a children's game attested from 1590s; as an adjective meaning "see-through, open," it dates from 1895. From peek (v.) + boo . Boo, Huw On 16 September 2015 at 17:04, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > This thread is enough to make a Buddhist out of one. > > With Peekaboo we?re back to Annalisa?s video of the child and the baby > gorilla at the zoo playing peekaboo. I googled ?peekaboo? and found that it > ?...is thought by developmental psychologists < > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology> to demonstrate an > infant's inability to understand object permanence < > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence>.? Am I wrong, or isn?t > Heisenberg showing us that it?s impossible to prove such permanence? > There?s no there there. As well, the ?God particle? is no particle at all. > It?s a field. Then there?s the closing of each of Mike?s posts from Boesch: > "It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object that creates history.? > > Thanks to Huw for Tolstoy. War and Peace challenges (some) conceptions of > freedom and human agency. So does the quote from Boesch that ends each of > Mike?s posts. But doesn?t Snyder point precisely to the failure of Hitler?s > nihilistic project to come to terms with Boesch?s dilemma? I guess I?m > pointing here myself to the crises of psychology that are at the heart of > Vygotsky?s work. > > And, aren?t comedy and tragedy both figure and ground to one another? Back > to Buddhism. Or am I totally off thread and off my rocker? > > Henry > > > > > > On Sep 16, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: > > > > Peekaboo is the difference between comedy and tragedy. > > > > Huw > > > > On 16 September 2015 at 15:02, mike cole wrote: > > > >> ?Peekaboo, not Hitler's view of the world, is the topic thread here. > >> > >> mike? > >> > >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Annalisa Aguilar > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I hovered in uncertainty to reply, but, um?am I missing something? > >>> > >>> Honestly, I got more out of watching a toddler play peekaboo with a > baby > >>> ape: I certainly didn't feel nausea at the end. > >>> > >>> Oh and by the way, happy new year. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > >> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >> > > From dkirsh@lsu.edu Wed Sep 16 15:38:12 2015 From: dkirsh@lsu.edu (David H Kirshner) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:38:12 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder In-Reply-To: References: <8101C5DE-3B38-4DA5-A359-31B62051FC54@gmail.com> Message-ID: His incoherent ideas led to his rise as Germany's Fuhrer. That he/they didn't prevail in the war had nothing to do with his ideas and everything to do with guns (and with the fact that Alan Turing's team cracked the enigma code rendering German military communications transparent)--more of a fluke than a winding down of a flawed ideology. David -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+dkirsh=lsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+dkirsh=lsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Peter Smagorinsky Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 4:23 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder David, do you think that it was his incoherent ideas, or our guns, that led to his defeat? -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David H Kirshner Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 4:56 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder David, I found opening of this window into Hitler's thinking to be very revealing. In the past Hitler has been a black box to me, a stimulus to my response of revulsion, a compelling lunatic whose emotive compulsion against the Jews was contagious. Now I see that Hitler was a man of ideas--mostly incoherent ideas, but ideas nonetheless. My takeaway from the article is that in the end Hitler's ideas were not persuasive. In fact, he was inconsistent and somewhat opportunistic in his framing of his ideas. But, importantly, he signified to the German people as a leader who was guided by ideas, and whose anger and hatred toward the Jews was justified by ideas, notwithstanding that few people had any real understanding of what these ideas might be. This made him potent as a leader far beyond what he could have achieved had his hatred and compulsion against the Jews been seen in purely emotional terms. He is a testament not to the power of ideas, but to the power of the idea of ideas. David -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+dkirsh=lsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+dkirsh=lsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Preiss Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 3:00 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder Dear colleagues, I am sorry. I can't follow your thoughts. I just think that the essay is informative and worth reading. I liked two ideas of the essay: -The brute notion of nature adopted by Hitler, a strange mix of pseudo-darwinism and, maybe, pseudo-romanticism? In some way it is a naturalisation of culture as well. -The paradoxical relationship Hitler established with science (or technology) and how he understood the relationship between science and nature. Technology was part and parcel of nature, ethical thinking not. It is shocking how such strange blend of ideas could be used to rationalise the extermination of the family of my grandparents and be adopted by such a large amount of presumed civilised and educated people to support the criminals that took over Germany 80 years ago. When we see what is going on in Syria and Iraq these days, one wonders what is the strange combination of ideas driving human beings to massacre each other in a genocidal way again and how those ideas are not adequately challenged by all of those that witness the events. David On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 1:04 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > This thread is enough to make a Buddhist out of one. > > With Peekaboo we?re back to Annalisa?s video of the child and the baby > gorilla at the zoo playing peekaboo. I googled ?peekaboo? and found > that it ?...is thought by developmental psychologists < > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology> to demonstrate > an infant's inability to understand object permanence < > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence>.? Am I wrong, or > isn?t Heisenberg showing us that it?s impossible to prove such permanence? > There?s no there there. As well, the ?God particle? is no particle at all. > It?s a field. Then there?s the closing of each of Mike?s posts from Boesch: > "It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object that creates history.? > > Thanks to Huw for Tolstoy. War and Peace challenges (some) conceptions > of freedom and human agency. So does the quote from Boesch that ends > each of Mike?s posts. But doesn?t Snyder point precisely to the > failure of Hitler?s nihilistic project to come to terms with Boesch?s > dilemma? I guess I?m pointing here myself to the crises of psychology > that are at the heart of Vygotsky?s work. > > And, aren?t comedy and tragedy both figure and ground to one another? > Back to Buddhism. Or am I totally off thread and off my rocker? > > Henry > > > > > > On Sep 16, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: > > > > Peekaboo is the difference between comedy and tragedy. > > > > Huw > > > > On 16 September 2015 at 15:02, mike cole wrote: > > > >> ?Peekaboo, not Hitler's view of the world, is the topic thread here. > >> > >> mike? > >> > >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Annalisa Aguilar > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I hovered in uncertainty to reply, but, um?am I missing something? > >>> > >>> Honestly, I got more out of watching a toddler play peekaboo with > >>> a > baby > >>> ape: I certainly didn't feel nausea at the end. > >>> > >>> Oh and by the way, happy new year. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with > >> an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > >> > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Wed Sep 16 15:59:37 2015 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:59:37 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: =?utf-8?q?FW=3A_Hitler=E2=80=99s_World_by_Timothy_Snyder_=7C_?= =?utf-8?q?The_New_York_Review_of_Books?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, Peter. The question of "the next genocide" is a topic that is well worth being concerned about. Cries of "Them or us" are becoming difficult to avoid if one is able to brave the morning newspapers or the evening new program. of course, if you want to avoid the issue, try the US presidential debate this evening. mike On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote: > More from Snyder, if you?re interested. p > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/opinion/sunday/the-next-genocide.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share > > > > ________________________________ > From: Peter Smagorinsky > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 3:03 PM > To: Joel A Taxel > Subject: FW: Hitler?s World by Timothy Snyder | The New York Review of > Books > > > David is a Chilean Jew. I finally get what made Hitler tick. > > > > From: David Preiss [mailto:daviddpreiss@me.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 10:43 PM > To: Peter Smagorinsky; mike cole > Subject: Hitler?s World by Timothy Snyder | The New York Review of Books > > > > Snyder is always smart and original when talking about these issues. > > http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/sep/24/hitlers-world/ > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From hshonerd@gmail.com Wed Sep 16 16:45:34 2015 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:45:34 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: peek-a-boo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Whew! > On Sep 16, 2015, at 4:03 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > > Seems quite sane to me, Henry. > > peekaboo (n.) > [image: > Look up peekaboo at Dictionary.com] > also peek-a-boo, as a > children's game attested from 1590s; as an adjective meaning "see-through, > open," it dates from 1895. From peek > (v.) + > boo . > > > Boo, > Huw > > On 16 September 2015 at 17:04, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > >> This thread is enough to make a Buddhist out of one. >> >> With Peekaboo we?re back to Annalisa?s video of the child and the baby >> gorilla at the zoo playing peekaboo. I googled ?peekaboo? and found that it >> ?...is thought by developmental psychologists < >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology> to demonstrate an >> infant's inability to understand object permanence < >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence>.? Am I wrong, or isn?t >> Heisenberg showing us that it?s impossible to prove such permanence? >> There?s no there there. As well, the ?God particle? is no particle at all. >> It?s a field. Then there?s the closing of each of Mike?s posts from Boesch: >> "It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an >> object that creates history.? >> >> Thanks to Huw for Tolstoy. War and Peace challenges (some) conceptions of >> freedom and human agency. So does the quote from Boesch that ends each of >> Mike?s posts. But doesn?t Snyder point precisely to the failure of Hitler?s >> nihilistic project to come to terms with Boesch?s dilemma? I guess I?m >> pointing here myself to the crises of psychology that are at the heart of >> Vygotsky?s work. >> >> And, aren?t comedy and tragedy both figure and ground to one another? Back >> to Buddhism. Or am I totally off thread and off my rocker? >> >> Henry >> >> >> >> >>> On Sep 16, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Huw Lloyd >> wrote: >>> >>> Peekaboo is the difference between comedy and tragedy. >>> >>> Huw >>> >>> On 16 September 2015 at 15:02, mike cole wrote: >>> >>>> ?Peekaboo, not Hitler's view of the world, is the topic thread here. >>>> >>>> mike? >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Annalisa Aguilar >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I hovered in uncertainty to reply, but, um?am I missing something? >>>>> >>>>> Honestly, I got more out of watching a toddler play peekaboo with a >> baby >>>>> ape: I certainly didn't feel nausea at the end. >>>>> >>>>> Oh and by the way, happy new year. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an >>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>>> >> >> From annalisa@unm.edu Wed Sep 16 16:54:01 2015 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:54:01 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder In-Reply-To: References: <8101C5DE-3B38-4DA5-A359-31B62051FC54@gmail.com>, Message-ID: Dear David P. Thanks for clarifying. It is an informative essay, but it was also nauseating for me to read. I didn't mean to cross-post to distract when I made my reply concerning the peekaboo between a toddler and a baby ape, but for other reasons. Although... it is interesting to juxtapose the developmental aspects of peekaboo and infantile concepts of object permanence, with the consideration of why Hitler did not succeed. An accidental smashing of particles on the list that seems to have legs. --- ~ --- ~ --- ~ --- What bothered me about the essay is hard to articulate, but the best metaphor for more immediate translation (which may fail here in text) would be like being invited to the viewing of an art photograph in a MOMA exhibition with the content material of a lynching incident in the US south. The object's existence is going to be hurtful just for existing as an object. I thought, gee, how a white supremacist could actually de-light in reading the Snyder essay. This is what bothered me. Then, I asked myself, why was this article appearing in NYTRB so near Rosh Hoshanah/Yom Kippur? I did not write these things initially, because I did not want to appear accusatory about your intentions, and so I think what I was really asking is for the connections you made that motivated you to post it to the list. So thanks. I hope I didn't overexplain that. There is this unspoken game, that whoever mentions Hitler first loses. And here "the game" started that way. Another part that is difficult (for me... while considering the article) is to consider that Hitler actually could be an intellectual, because these entities (the concept of Hitler and the concept of an intellectual) don't seem to actually coincide. My mind suffers a terrible cognitive meltdown of sorts. I do appreciate that there could be the illusion of a sense of relief to think that there was an actual idea structure behind Hitler's worldview (It is above my pay grade to say that there is an actual idea structure there). However, what is most nauseating is that it doesn't make any sense, and it transgresses sensibilities on so many levels, moral, scientific, psychological, historical, the list goes on. I know I'm not saying anything that no one already knows. Or is it that what I'm saying is something everyone knows. I guess that depends if one got up on the nihilist side of the bed today (homage to Henry's Buddhist comment, there). To bring the Mobius strip back to the beginning, I submit that even reading this essay was hurtful to me, that is how awful these "ideas" are. Isn't this how double binds function? Kind regards, with the sound of one hand not clapping... Annalisa From hshonerd@gmail.com Wed Sep 16 17:29:08 2015 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:29:08 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder In-Reply-To: References: <8101C5DE-3B38-4DA5-A359-31B62051FC54@gmail.com> Message-ID: And look how Turing was rewarded. Just as Hitler paid homage to science, much of which is owed to the Jews, and they were rewarded with the Holocaust. Today Trump excoriates illegal immigrants to a nation built on immigration. Then there?s the little issue of the genocide implicit in the killing and relocation of Native Americans already here. So much mindless destruction in the name of freedom. Agency certainly ought to carry humility with it, at whatever scale. Regarding Jews AND the rest of the world, our congregation (Nahalat Shalom, which means ?inheritance of peace?), along with Jews around the world, will celebrate Yom Kippur, the day of atonement, next Tuesday. I take it to be the most compelling commemoration in the Jewish calendar. The creativity of repair. Incidentally, I am not Jewish, though my wife, and hence my son, are. I am, to quote our Rabbi, Jew-ish. The phonotactics are important. Henry > On Sep 16, 2015, at 4:38 PM, David H Kirshner wrote: > > His incoherent ideas led to his rise as Germany's Fuhrer. > That he/they didn't prevail in the war had nothing to do with his ideas and everything to do with guns (and with the fact that Alan Turing's team cracked the enigma code rendering German military communications transparent)--more of a fluke than a winding down of a flawed ideology. > David > > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+dkirsh=lsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+dkirsh=lsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Peter Smagorinsky > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 4:23 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder > > David, do you think that it was his incoherent ideas, or our guns, that led to his defeat? > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David H Kirshner > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 4:56 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder > > David, > > I found opening of this window into Hitler's thinking to be very revealing. > In the past Hitler has been a black box to me, a stimulus to my response of revulsion, a compelling lunatic whose emotive compulsion against the Jews was contagious. > > Now I see that Hitler was a man of ideas--mostly incoherent ideas, but ideas nonetheless. > My takeaway from the article is that in the end Hitler's ideas were not persuasive. > In fact, he was inconsistent and somewhat opportunistic in his framing of his ideas. > > But, importantly, he signified to the German people as a leader who was guided by ideas, and whose anger and hatred toward the Jews was justified by ideas, notwithstanding that few people had any real understanding of what these ideas might be. This made him potent as a leader far beyond what he could have achieved had his hatred and compulsion against the Jews been seen in purely emotional terms. > > He is a testament not to the power of ideas, but to the power of the idea of ideas. > > David > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces+dkirsh=lsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+dkirsh=lsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Preiss > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 3:00 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Hitler's World by T. Snyder > > Dear colleagues, > > I am sorry. I can't follow your thoughts. I just think that the essay is informative and worth reading. I liked two ideas of the essay: > > -The brute notion of nature adopted by Hitler, a strange mix of pseudo-darwinism and, maybe, pseudo-romanticism? In some way it is a naturalisation of culture as well. > > -The paradoxical relationship Hitler established with science (or > technology) and how he understood the relationship between science and nature. Technology was part and parcel of nature, ethical thinking not. > > It is shocking how such strange blend of ideas could be used to rationalise the extermination of the family of my grandparents and be adopted by such a large amount of presumed civilised and educated people to support the criminals that took over Germany 80 years ago. > > When we see what is going on in Syria and Iraq these days, one wonders what is the strange combination of ideas driving human beings to massacre each other in a genocidal way again and how those ideas are not adequately challenged by all of those that witness the events. > > David > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 1:04 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > >> This thread is enough to make a Buddhist out of one. >> >> With Peekaboo we?re back to Annalisa?s video of the child and the baby >> gorilla at the zoo playing peekaboo. I googled ?peekaboo? and found >> that it ?...is thought by developmental psychologists < >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology> to demonstrate >> an infant's inability to understand object permanence < >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence>.? Am I wrong, or >> isn?t Heisenberg showing us that it?s impossible to prove such permanence? >> There?s no there there. As well, the ?God particle? is no particle at all. >> It?s a field. Then there?s the closing of each of Mike?s posts from Boesch: >> "It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an >> object that creates history.? >> >> Thanks to Huw for Tolstoy. War and Peace challenges (some) conceptions >> of freedom and human agency. So does the quote from Boesch that ends >> each of Mike?s posts. But doesn?t Snyder point precisely to the >> failure of Hitler?s nihilistic project to come to terms with Boesch?s >> dilemma? I guess I?m pointing here myself to the crises of psychology >> that are at the heart of Vygotsky?s work. >> >> And, aren?t comedy and tragedy both figure and ground to one another? >> Back to Buddhism. Or am I totally off thread and off my rocker? >> >> Henry >> >> >> >> >>> On Sep 16, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Huw Lloyd >> wrote: >>> >>> Peekaboo is the difference between comedy and tragedy. >>> >>> Huw >>> >>> On 16 September 2015 at 15:02, mike cole wrote: >>> >>>> ?Peekaboo, not Hitler's view of the world, is the topic thread here. >>>> >>>> mike? >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Annalisa Aguilar >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I hovered in uncertainty to reply, but, um?am I missing something? >>>>> >>>>> Honestly, I got more out of watching a toddler play peekaboo with >>>>> a >> baby >>>>> ape: I certainly didn't feel nausea at the end. >>>>> >>>>> Oh and by the way, happy new year. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with >>>> an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>>> >> >> > > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Mon Sep 21 10:59:33 2015 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Larry Purss) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 10:59:33 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] the technical meaning of "imitation" that requires "under/standing" Message-ID: I wanted to return to Seth Chaiklin's article on ZPD and the concept of "imitation" which has a technical meaning for Vygotsky that implies that only what is "under/stood" can be imitated. I want to tie this RELATION to Gadamer's notion that one can only "interpret" what is "under/stood". Now Gadamer's notion of "interpretation" is based on Heidegger's notions of "FORE-STRUCTURES" [for example fore-concepts]. I have a hunch that these two relations [imitation/understanding] and [interpretation/understanding] may overlap in certain aspects. I could say more but I am fascinated by this notion of the place where we stand that is "under" us is already a felt "sense" prior to its being articulated in "gestures" and different "modalities" [touch hearing sight]. Language as a primary way of expressing the fore-structures. Development as a way of articulating the shifting structure-function-genesis through imitation and interpretation but indicating what is already "felt" under/standing? I hope this question is somewhat clear? From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Mon Sep 21 12:44:02 2015 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 20:44:02 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: the technical meaning of "imitation" that requires "under/standing" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Larry, I didn't read a direct question in your request. If you're asking about the relation between understanding and interpretation, I would say that they are both predicated on appreciation of the meanings in the situations. Note that the criteria of a "test by imitation" will necessarily refer to a special kind of imitation, that traverses the latently meaningful circumstances that represent what skill is being imitated. Imitation by rote will not suffice for content requiring interpretation that is contingent upon the orientation and goals of the actor. This is the same thing as the assertion that one must engage with the problem rather than learning set rules, in order to achieve conceptual development. Best, Huw On 21 September 2015 at 18:59, Larry Purss wrote: > I wanted to return to Seth Chaiklin's article on ZPD and the concept of > "imitation" which has a technical meaning for Vygotsky that implies that > only what is "under/stood" can be imitated. > > I want to tie this RELATION to Gadamer's notion that one can only > "interpret" what is "under/stood". > > Now Gadamer's notion of "interpretation" is based on Heidegger's notions of > "FORE-STRUCTURES" [for example fore-concepts]. > > I have a hunch that these two relations [imitation/understanding] and > [interpretation/understanding] may overlap in certain aspects. > > I could say more but I am fascinated by this notion of the place where we > stand that is "under" us is already a felt "sense" prior to its being > articulated in "gestures" and different "modalities" [touch hearing sight]. > > Language as a primary way of expressing the fore-structures. Development as > a way of articulating the shifting structure-function-genesis through > imitation and interpretation but indicating what is already "felt" > under/standing? > I hope this question is somewhat clear? > From ulvi.icil@gmail.com Mon Sep 21 14:04:16 2015 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 00:04:16 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Over or excess involvement of parent - ZPD Message-ID: Life and new trials and experiences may have the potential for illimunating certain facts otherwise staying unresolved. Suppose that a parent supports his child for piano lessons at home. The child, unlike other,needed a lot of parent support until then to succeed in conservatory and the parent always though that without him/her, the child is not able to remember teacher's latest lesson's directives, to apply them etc. But this means that the child finds every time the parent besides him during lessons at home (even the parent takes not during the lesson with teacher) and the child is used to be reminded by the parent for the most critical things to be newly learned. The lesson before the last one is not so successful. Until that lesson the child and the parent worked again together. So many mistakes on the part of the child. But then, at return at home, they decide the child works on his own for three days. Then the new lesson with teacher takes place. Zero parent involvement. Then, this same passage is very well done and appreciated by the teacher and the teacher says, is this the same child, do you have another identical one at home. * So, my hypothesis is that, with such an excessinve parent involvement, who does not possess confidence in the child to study appropriately, the child may be chained and the process of developing his potential with adult may turn to a lack of opportunity to develop his potential on his own, which may be quite harmful for the child. May this hypothesis verified: when working with the parent, the child hands over his attention ability to the adult, he shares this ability with him, he delivers himself to the adult and is unable to take any initiative, is not the manager of the learning process. But, as soon as the parent goes out, he knows that he is the sole responsible for his own learning process and pays much more attention to what he does, makes maximum effort to learn during the lesson with the teacher, and to remember at home what the teacher taught during the lesson. In this case, I think the mistake on the part of the parent is the onset of the functioning of self regulation during learning process. Does this over or excess involvement make any sense, or a place in the literature? Ulvi From ulvi.icil@gmail.com Mon Sep 21 14:08:05 2015 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 00:08:05 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Over or excess involvement of parent - ZPD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sorry, at the very end, it should have been, lack of onset of the functioning... On 22 September 2015 at 00:04, Ulvi ??il wrote: > > > > Life and new trials and experiences may have the potential for > illimunating certain facts otherwise staying unresolved. > > Suppose that a parent supports his child for piano lessons at home. The > child, unlike other,needed a lot of parent support until then to succeed in > conservatory and the parent always though that without him/her, the child > is not able to remember teacher's latest lesson's directives, to apply them > etc. > > But this means that the child finds every time the parent besides him > during lessons at home (even the parent takes not during the lesson with > teacher) and the child is used to be reminded by the parent for the most > critical things to be newly learned. > > The lesson before the last one is not so successful. Until that lesson the > child and the parent worked again together. So many mistakes on the part of > the child. > > But then, at return at home, they decide the child works on his own for > three days. Then the new lesson with teacher takes place. Zero parent > involvement. > > Then, this same passage is very well done and appreciated by the teacher > and the teacher says, is this the same child, do you have another identical > one at home. > > * > > So, my hypothesis is that, with such an excessinve parent involvement, who > does not possess confidence in the child to study appropriately, the child > may be chained and the process of developing his potential with adult may > turn to a lack of opportunity to develop his potential on his own, which > may be quite harmful for the child. > > May this hypothesis verified: when working with the parent, the child > hands over his attention ability to the adult, he shares this ability with > him, he delivers himself to the adult and is unable to take any initiative, > is not the manager of the learning process. > > But, as soon as the parent goes out, he knows that he is the sole > responsible for his own learning process and pays much more attention to > what he does, makes maximum effort to learn during the lesson with the > teacher, and to remember at home what the teacher taught during the lesson. > > In this case, I think the mistake on the part of the parent is the onset > of the functioning of self regulation during learning process. > > Does this over or excess involvement make any sense, or a place in the > literature? > > Ulvi > > > > > > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Mon Sep 21 14:57:32 2015 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 06:57:32 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Over or excess involvement of parent - ZPD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Ulvi: Well, the literature I've read is contradictory. On the one hand, there is that famous Brazilian study on building model farms. One group was "scaffolded" by their parents and the other by skilled elementary school teachers. The parents tended to elbow the children aside and make the models themselves (so as not to waste the precious clay), but the teachers tended to stand back and let the kids have a go. The result was that the teacher scaffolded group attained much higher levels of self-regulation. In contrast, Askew et al notes that teachers who are quite skillful at scaffolding their own children at home do not actually use scaffolding strategies in the classroom (because of time pressure and the presence of too many different learners with different needs). The assumption is that delicate scaffolding is an effective strategy. Something similar appears when we look at "scaffolding" research in foreign language learning--the more delicate the scaffolding, the more effective it is, whatever that means. Vygotsky, however, is not contradictory at all. Even in the famous passage on p. 86, he is very offhand and casual about the different strategies which can be used in teaching (leading questions, starting solutions, doing demonstrations) and treats the degrees of freedom in collaboration as an empirical problem, to be worked out on a case by case basis. He even points out that a child at home who remembers the way that a teacher solved a math problem on the board and uses it to solve a problem is "in collaboration". See also his use of different kinds of "introvolution" at the end of Chapter Five of HDHMF. But--here's MY question. Vygotsky often contrasts particular physical skills (bike riding, playing golf, type-writing) to psychological development, and he makes it very clear that the former play no part in the zone of proximal development, at least for the school age child, because they are not developmental. On the other hand, he also compares learning to play the piano with learning to write, where finger skills do not play a part in the zone of proximal development, but the psychological functions involved in musical and literary awareness do. Instead of considering that what happens when the child works alone is a change in the source and the quality of motivation, couldn't we say that what happens is that the child is able to get beyond a fixation on fingering and understand music as a complex psychological function? David Kellogg On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > Sorry, at the very end, it should have been, lack of onset of the > functioning... > > On 22 September 2015 at 00:04, Ulvi ??il wrote: > > > > > > > > > Life and new trials and experiences may have the potential for > > illimunating certain facts otherwise staying unresolved. > > > > Suppose that a parent supports his child for piano lessons at home. The > > child, unlike other,needed a lot of parent support until then to succeed > in > > conservatory and the parent always though that without him/her, the child > > is not able to remember teacher's latest lesson's directives, to apply > them > > etc. > > > > But this means that the child finds every time the parent besides him > > during lessons at home (even the parent takes not during the lesson with > > teacher) and the child is used to be reminded by the parent for the most > > critical things to be newly learned. > > > > The lesson before the last one is not so successful. Until that lesson > the > > child and the parent worked again together. So many mistakes on the part > of > > the child. > > > > But then, at return at home, they decide the child works on his own for > > three days. Then the new lesson with teacher takes place. Zero parent > > involvement. > > > > Then, this same passage is very well done and appreciated by the teacher > > and the teacher says, is this the same child, do you have another > identical > > one at home. > > > > * > > > > So, my hypothesis is that, with such an excessinve parent involvement, > who > > does not possess confidence in the child to study appropriately, the > child > > may be chained and the process of developing his potential with adult > may > > turn to a lack of opportunity to develop his potential on his own, which > > may be quite harmful for the child. > > > > May this hypothesis verified: when working with the parent, the child > > hands over his attention ability to the adult, he shares this ability > with > > him, he delivers himself to the adult and is unable to take any > initiative, > > is not the manager of the learning process. > > > > But, as soon as the parent goes out, he knows that he is the sole > > responsible for his own learning process and pays much more attention to > > what he does, makes maximum effort to learn during the lesson with the > > teacher, and to remember at home what the teacher taught during the > lesson. > > > > In this case, I think the mistake on the part of the parent is the onset > > of the functioning of self regulation during learning process. > > > > Does this over or excess involvement make any sense, or a place in the > > literature? > > > > Ulvi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Mon Sep 21 15:12:36 2015 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 23:12:36 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Over or excess involvement of parent - ZPD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, Ulvi, that seems like a reasonable hypothesis. Though there remains a great deal of scope for ambiguity. I wonder whether the dynamics you are exploring may be attributed to a somewhat mediocre motive vs a motive that would lean towards ignoring or contesting the parental mediation rather than passively submitting to it. Equally it seems reasonable that a student may sulkily submit to a passive role in response to an overbearing parent, but I suspect there would be a history of resistance to that. The kinds of transfers one can gain from learning physical skills include a confidence in successful learning strategies -- to discover that heartily getting involved in an undertaking is good, rather than sitting on the hands and doing as one is told. Best, Huw On 21 September 2015 at 22:04, Ulvi ??il wrote: > Life and new trials and experiences may have the potential for illimunating > certain facts otherwise staying unresolved. > > Suppose that a parent supports his child for piano lessons at home. The > child, unlike other,needed a lot of parent support until then to succeed in > conservatory and the parent always though that without him/her, the child > is not able to remember teacher's latest lesson's directives, to apply them > etc. > > But this means that the child finds every time the parent besides him > during lessons at home (even the parent takes not during the lesson with > teacher) and the child is used to be reminded by the parent for the most > critical things to be newly learned. > > The lesson before the last one is not so successful. Until that lesson the > child and the parent worked again together. So many mistakes on the part of > the child. > > But then, at return at home, they decide the child works on his own for > three days. Then the new lesson with teacher takes place. Zero parent > involvement. > > Then, this same passage is very well done and appreciated by the teacher > and the teacher says, is this the same child, do you have another identical > one at home. > > * > > So, my hypothesis is that, with such an excessinve parent involvement, who > does not possess confidence in the child to study appropriately, the child > may be chained and the process of developing his potential with adult may > turn to a lack of opportunity to develop his potential on his own, which > may be quite harmful for the child. > > May this hypothesis verified: when working with the parent, the child hands > over his attention ability to the adult, he shares this ability with him, > he delivers himself to the adult and is unable to take any initiative, is > not the manager of the learning process. > > But, as soon as the parent goes out, he knows that he is the sole > responsible for his own learning process and pays much more attention to > what he does, makes maximum effort to learn during the lesson with the > teacher, and to remember at home what the teacher taught during the lesson. > > In this case, I think the mistake on the part of the parent is the onset of > the functioning of self regulation during learning process. > > Does this over or excess involvement make any sense, or a place in the > literature? > > Ulvi > From ulvi.icil@gmail.com Mon Sep 21 15:34:38 2015 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 01:34:38 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Over or excess involvement of parent - ZPD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I tend to answer your question in the affirmative David, I think that, while working alone, the child has the opportunity to think, s/he is allowed to think, to evaluate, s/he is free to do so while with parent, s/he is constrained to do the best possible. And I think that to be able to think makes the child nearer to musicality. And this during the lesson with the teacher also that more musicality or attention to musicality is paid. For the difference btw bike, golf and piano and writing, may it be too much speculative if I hypothesize that the latter seem to be more specifically or closely, intensely related with neural substrates. On 22 September 2015 at 00:57, David Kellogg wrote: > Dear Ulvi: > > Well, the literature I've read is contradictory. On the one hand, there is > that famous Brazilian study on building model farms. One group was > "scaffolded" by their parents and the other by skilled elementary school > teachers. The parents tended to elbow the children aside and make the > models themselves (so as not to waste the precious clay), but the teachers > tended to stand back and let the kids have a go. The result was that the > teacher scaffolded group attained much higher levels of self-regulation. > > In contrast, Askew et al notes that teachers who are quite skillful at > scaffolding their own children at home do not actually use scaffolding > strategies in the classroom (because of time pressure and the presence of > too many different learners with different needs). The assumption is that > delicate scaffolding is an effective strategy. Something similar appears > when we look at "scaffolding" research in foreign language learning--the > more delicate the scaffolding, the more effective it is, whatever that > means. > > Vygotsky, however, is not contradictory at all. Even in the famous passage > on p. 86, he is very offhand and casual about the different strategies > which can be used in teaching (leading questions, starting solutions, doing > demonstrations) and treats the degrees of freedom in collaboration as an > empirical problem, to be worked out on a case by case basis. He even points > out that a child at home who remembers the way that a teacher solved a math > problem on the board and uses it to solve a problem is "in collaboration". > See also his use of different kinds of "introvolution" at the end of > Chapter Five of HDHMF. > > But--here's MY question. Vygotsky often contrasts particular physical > skills (bike riding, playing golf, type-writing) to psychological > development, and he makes it very clear that the former play no part in the > zone of proximal development, at least for the school age child, because > they are not developmental. On the other hand, he also compares learning to > play the piano with learning to write, where finger skills do not play a > part in the zone of proximal development, but the psychological functions > involved in musical and literary awareness do. > > Instead of considering that what happens when the child works alone is a > change in the source and the quality of motivation, couldn't we say that > what happens is that the child is able to get beyond a fixation on > fingering and understand music as a complex psychological function? > > David Kellogg > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > > > Sorry, at the very end, it should have been, lack of onset of the > > functioning... > > > > On 22 September 2015 at 00:04, Ulvi ??il wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Life and new trials and experiences may have the potential for > > > illimunating certain facts otherwise staying unresolved. > > > > > > Suppose that a parent supports his child for piano lessons at home. The > > > child, unlike other,needed a lot of parent support until then to > succeed > > in > > > conservatory and the parent always though that without him/her, the > child > > > is not able to remember teacher's latest lesson's directives, to apply > > them > > > etc. > > > > > > But this means that the child finds every time the parent besides him > > > during lessons at home (even the parent takes not during the lesson > with > > > teacher) and the child is used to be reminded by the parent for the > most > > > critical things to be newly learned. > > > > > > The lesson before the last one is not so successful. Until that lesson > > the > > > child and the parent worked again together. So many mistakes on the > part > > of > > > the child. > > > > > > But then, at return at home, they decide the child works on his own for > > > three days. Then the new lesson with teacher takes place. Zero parent > > > involvement. > > > > > > Then, this same passage is very well done and appreciated by the > teacher > > > and the teacher says, is this the same child, do you have another > > identical > > > one at home. > > > > > > * > > > > > > So, my hypothesis is that, with such an excessinve parent involvement, > > who > > > does not possess confidence in the child to study appropriately, the > > child > > > may be chained and the process of developing his potential with adult > > may > > > turn to a lack of opportunity to develop his potential on his own, > which > > > may be quite harmful for the child. > > > > > > May this hypothesis verified: when working with the parent, the child > > > hands over his attention ability to the adult, he shares this ability > > with > > > him, he delivers himself to the adult and is unable to take any > > initiative, > > > is not the manager of the learning process. > > > > > > But, as soon as the parent goes out, he knows that he is the sole > > > responsible for his own learning process and pays much more attention > to > > > what he does, makes maximum effort to learn during the lesson with the > > > teacher, and to remember at home what the teacher taught during the > > lesson. > > > > > > In this case, I think the mistake on the part of the parent is the > onset > > > of the functioning of self regulation during learning process. > > > > > > Does this over or excess involvement make any sense, or a place in the > > > literature? > > > > > > Ulvi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From ulvi.icil@gmail.com Mon Sep 21 15:40:33 2015 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 01:40:33 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Over or excess involvement of parent - ZPD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I completely agree what you wrote Huw, and yes, you are right there is a resistance story also. I think that the parent needs to observe when it is the right time to go out rather than to stay in. Because at some point this may turn out to be a vicious circle. Not to leave the child on his own for fear of unsuccess, whereas in fact it is improvement in self-regulation (executive functions) who is to make the child more successful. On 22 September 2015 at 01:12, Huw Lloyd wrote: > Yes, Ulvi, that seems like a reasonable hypothesis. Though there remains a > great deal of scope for ambiguity. I wonder whether the dynamics you are > exploring may be attributed to a somewhat mediocre motive vs a motive that > would lean towards ignoring or contesting the parental mediation rather > than passively submitting to it. Equally it seems reasonable that a > student may sulkily submit to a passive role in response to an overbearing > parent, but I suspect there would be a history of resistance to that. > > The kinds of transfers one can gain from learning physical skills include a > confidence in successful learning strategies -- to discover that heartily > getting involved in an undertaking is good, rather than sitting on the > hands and doing as one is told. > > Best, > Huw > > > > On 21 September 2015 at 22:04, Ulvi ??il wrote: > > > Life and new trials and experiences may have the potential for > illimunating > > certain facts otherwise staying unresolved. > > > > Suppose that a parent supports his child for piano lessons at home. The > > child, unlike other,needed a lot of parent support until then to succeed > in > > conservatory and the parent always though that without him/her, the child > > is not able to remember teacher's latest lesson's directives, to apply > them > > etc. > > > > But this means that the child finds every time the parent besides him > > during lessons at home (even the parent takes not during the lesson with > > teacher) and the child is used to be reminded by the parent for the most > > critical things to be newly learned. > > > > The lesson before the last one is not so successful. Until that lesson > the > > child and the parent worked again together. So many mistakes on the part > of > > the child. > > > > But then, at return at home, they decide the child works on his own for > > three days. Then the new lesson with teacher takes place. Zero parent > > involvement. > > > > Then, this same passage is very well done and appreciated by the teacher > > and the teacher says, is this the same child, do you have another > identical > > one at home. > > > > * > > > > So, my hypothesis is that, with such an excessinve parent involvement, > who > > does not possess confidence in the child to study appropriately, the > child > > may be chained and the process of developing his potential with adult > may > > turn to a lack of opportunity to develop his potential on his own, which > > may be quite harmful for the child. > > > > May this hypothesis verified: when working with the parent, the child > hands > > over his attention ability to the adult, he shares this ability with him, > > he delivers himself to the adult and is unable to take any initiative, is > > not the manager of the learning process. > > > > But, as soon as the parent goes out, he knows that he is the sole > > responsible for his own learning process and pays much more attention to > > what he does, makes maximum effort to learn during the lesson with the > > teacher, and to remember at home what the teacher taught during the > lesson. > > > > In this case, I think the mistake on the part of the parent is the onset > of > > the functioning of self regulation during learning process. > > > > Does this over or excess involvement make any sense, or a place in the > > literature? > > > > Ulvi > > > From hshonerd@gmail.com Mon Sep 21 18:09:46 2015 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:09:46 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Over or excess involvement of parent - ZPD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <38B870FE-BCC2-46FC-80CE-CA50D998C504@gmail.com> Great questions and answers! I am wondering about personality, age and cultural differences here. And don?t crises affect both the child and the adult in ways that make development difficult, no matter how sensitive the adult is. I have a feeling we?re back to a nuanced understanding/interpretation of Chaiklin on the ZPD. It?s not just scaffolding. Henry > On Sep 21, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > > I completely agree what you wrote Huw, and yes, you are right there is a > resistance story also. > > I think that the parent needs to observe when it is the right time to go > out rather than to stay in. > > Because at some point this may turn out to be a vicious circle. Not to > leave the child on his own for fear of unsuccess, whereas in fact it is > improvement in self-regulation (executive functions) who is to make the > child more successful. > > > > > > On 22 September 2015 at 01:12, Huw Lloyd wrote: > >> Yes, Ulvi, that seems like a reasonable hypothesis. Though there remains a >> great deal of scope for ambiguity. I wonder whether the dynamics you are >> exploring may be attributed to a somewhat mediocre motive vs a motive that >> would lean towards ignoring or contesting the parental mediation rather >> than passively submitting to it. Equally it seems reasonable that a >> student may sulkily submit to a passive role in response to an overbearing >> parent, but I suspect there would be a history of resistance to that. >> >> The kinds of transfers one can gain from learning physical skills include a >> confidence in successful learning strategies -- to discover that heartily >> getting involved in an undertaking is good, rather than sitting on the >> hands and doing as one is told. >> >> Best, >> Huw >> >> >> >> On 21 September 2015 at 22:04, Ulvi ??il wrote: >> >>> Life and new trials and experiences may have the potential for >> illimunating >>> certain facts otherwise staying unresolved. >>> >>> Suppose that a parent supports his child for piano lessons at home. The >>> child, unlike other,needed a lot of parent support until then to succeed >> in >>> conservatory and the parent always though that without him/her, the child >>> is not able to remember teacher's latest lesson's directives, to apply >> them >>> etc. >>> >>> But this means that the child finds every time the parent besides him >>> during lessons at home (even the parent takes not during the lesson with >>> teacher) and the child is used to be reminded by the parent for the most >>> critical things to be newly learned. >>> >>> The lesson before the last one is not so successful. Until that lesson >> the >>> child and the parent worked again together. So many mistakes on the part >> of >>> the child. >>> >>> But then, at return at home, they decide the child works on his own for >>> three days. Then the new lesson with teacher takes place. Zero parent >>> involvement. >>> >>> Then, this same passage is very well done and appreciated by the teacher >>> and the teacher says, is this the same child, do you have another >> identical >>> one at home. >>> >>> * >>> >>> So, my hypothesis is that, with such an excessinve parent involvement, >> who >>> does not possess confidence in the child to study appropriately, the >> child >>> may be chained and the process of developing his potential with adult >> may >>> turn to a lack of opportunity to develop his potential on his own, which >>> may be quite harmful for the child. >>> >>> May this hypothesis verified: when working with the parent, the child >> hands >>> over his attention ability to the adult, he shares this ability with him, >>> he delivers himself to the adult and is unable to take any initiative, is >>> not the manager of the learning process. >>> >>> But, as soon as the parent goes out, he knows that he is the sole >>> responsible for his own learning process and pays much more attention to >>> what he does, makes maximum effort to learn during the lesson with the >>> teacher, and to remember at home what the teacher taught during the >> lesson. >>> >>> In this case, I think the mistake on the part of the parent is the onset >> of >>> the functioning of self regulation during learning process. >>> >>> Does this over or excess involvement make any sense, or a place in the >>> literature? >>> >>> Ulvi >>> >> From hshonerd@gmail.com Mon Sep 21 18:21:22 2015 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:21:22 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Over or excess involvement of parent - ZPD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: How do we know that fingering is NOT a complex psychological function in the development of ability on the piano? With respect, Henry > On Sep 21, 2015, at 4:34 PM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > > I tend to answer your question in the affirmative David, I think that, > while working alone, the child has the opportunity to think, s/he is > allowed to think, to evaluate, s/he is free to do so while with parent, > s/he is constrained to do the best possible. And I think that to be able to > think makes the child nearer to musicality. > And this during the lesson with the teacher also that more musicality or > attention to musicality is paid. > > For the difference btw bike, golf and piano and writing, may it be too much > speculative if I hypothesize that the latter seem to be more specifically > or closely, intensely related with neural substrates. > > On 22 September 2015 at 00:57, David Kellogg wrote: > >> Dear Ulvi: >> >> Well, the literature I've read is contradictory. On the one hand, there is >> that famous Brazilian study on building model farms. One group was >> "scaffolded" by their parents and the other by skilled elementary school >> teachers. The parents tended to elbow the children aside and make the >> models themselves (so as not to waste the precious clay), but the teachers >> tended to stand back and let the kids have a go. The result was that the >> teacher scaffolded group attained much higher levels of self-regulation. >> >> In contrast, Askew et al notes that teachers who are quite skillful at >> scaffolding their own children at home do not actually use scaffolding >> strategies in the classroom (because of time pressure and the presence of >> too many different learners with different needs). The assumption is that >> delicate scaffolding is an effective strategy. Something similar appears >> when we look at "scaffolding" research in foreign language learning--the >> more delicate the scaffolding, the more effective it is, whatever that >> means. >> >> Vygotsky, however, is not contradictory at all. Even in the famous passage >> on p. 86, he is very offhand and casual about the different strategies >> which can be used in teaching (leading questions, starting solutions, doing >> demonstrations) and treats the degrees of freedom in collaboration as an >> empirical problem, to be worked out on a case by case basis. He even points >> out that a child at home who remembers the way that a teacher solved a math >> problem on the board and uses it to solve a problem is "in collaboration". >> See also his use of different kinds of "introvolution" at the end of >> Chapter Five of HDHMF. >> >> But--here's MY question. Vygotsky often contrasts particular physical >> skills (bike riding, playing golf, type-writing) to psychological >> development, and he makes it very clear that the former play no part in the >> zone of proximal development, at least for the school age child, because >> they are not developmental. On the other hand, he also compares learning to >> play the piano with learning to write, where finger skills do not play a >> part in the zone of proximal development, but the psychological functions >> involved in musical and literary awareness do. >> >> Instead of considering that what happens when the child works alone is a >> change in the source and the quality of motivation, couldn't we say that >> what happens is that the child is able to get beyond a fixation on >> fingering and understand music as a complex psychological function? >> >> David Kellogg >> >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Ulvi ??il wrote: >> >>> Sorry, at the very end, it should have been, lack of onset of the >>> functioning... >>> >>> On 22 September 2015 at 00:04, Ulvi ??il wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Life and new trials and experiences may have the potential for >>>> illimunating certain facts otherwise staying unresolved. >>>> >>>> Suppose that a parent supports his child for piano lessons at home. The >>>> child, unlike other,needed a lot of parent support until then to >> succeed >>> in >>>> conservatory and the parent always though that without him/her, the >> child >>>> is not able to remember teacher's latest lesson's directives, to apply >>> them >>>> etc. >>>> >>>> But this means that the child finds every time the parent besides him >>>> during lessons at home (even the parent takes not during the lesson >> with >>>> teacher) and the child is used to be reminded by the parent for the >> most >>>> critical things to be newly learned. >>>> >>>> The lesson before the last one is not so successful. Until that lesson >>> the >>>> child and the parent worked again together. So many mistakes on the >> part >>> of >>>> the child. >>>> >>>> But then, at return at home, they decide the child works on his own for >>>> three days. Then the new lesson with teacher takes place. Zero parent >>>> involvement. >>>> >>>> Then, this same passage is very well done and appreciated by the >> teacher >>>> and the teacher says, is this the same child, do you have another >>> identical >>>> one at home. >>>> >>>> * >>>> >>>> So, my hypothesis is that, with such an excessinve parent involvement, >>> who >>>> does not possess confidence in the child to study appropriately, the >>> child >>>> may be chained and the process of developing his potential with adult >>> may >>>> turn to a lack of opportunity to develop his potential on his own, >> which >>>> may be quite harmful for the child. >>>> >>>> May this hypothesis verified: when working with the parent, the child >>>> hands over his attention ability to the adult, he shares this ability >>> with >>>> him, he delivers himself to the adult and is unable to take any >>> initiative, >>>> is not the manager of the learning process. >>>> >>>> But, as soon as the parent goes out, he knows that he is the sole >>>> responsible for his own learning process and pays much more attention >> to >>>> what he does, makes maximum effort to learn during the lesson with the >>>> teacher, and to remember at home what the teacher taught during the >>> lesson. >>>> >>>> In this case, I think the mistake on the part of the parent is the >> onset >>>> of the functioning of self regulation during learning process. >>>> >>>> Does this over or excess involvement make any sense, or a place in the >>>> literature? >>>> >>>> Ulvi >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> From lpscholar2@gmail.com Mon Sep 21 19:30:15 2015 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:30:15 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Over or excess involvement of parent - ZPD In-Reply-To: <38B870FE-BCC2-46FC-80CE-CA50D998C504@gmail.com> References: <38B870FE-BCC2-46FC-80CE-CA50D998C504@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5600bd4d.a287440a.6b06e.ffffafd1@mx.google.com> Ulvi, This question of when to assist the child and when to allow independent struggle I find a complex question that is answered within the event of instruction in a moment by moment undergoing. If we take the common sense model (scaffolding) there are 3 assumptions. * generality assumption - scaffolding applies to all kinds of learning/instruction. * assistance assumption - learning is DEPENDENT on interventions by more competent others. * potential assumption - potential is a character of the individual (the subject) This common sense scaffolding notion of ZPD focuses on *tasks* learned. Seth Chaiklin challenges these 3 common sense assumptions, and shifts to "imitation" but this is not a shift to "copying" what is modeled. For Seth imitation requires previous *understanding* and without this previous *fore* - structure then imitation is not possible. So the potential assumption is located in previous "understanding" that is not yet under intentional direction or control. IF the child is capable of using the others guidance to then do the task *independently* then there is *understandable* imitation. The question then is to analyze whether the child already *understands* but is not yet able to articulate or interpret this acquired *understanding*. ( bring into a discourse gestalt or a verbal thought process that reflects the child developing a new quality (developments) to the *felt* understanding that can be imitated (not copied) as the expression of being in transition to developing a new formation that brings what is already a *felt* understanding to conscious awareness and use. This is how I interpret reading Seth's article. Larry -----Original Message----- From: "HENRY SHONERD" Sent: ?2015-?09-?21 6:10 PM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Over or excess involvement of parent - ZPD Great questions and answers! I am wondering about personality, age and cultural differences here. And don?t crises affect both the child and the adult in ways that make development difficult, no matter how sensitive the adult is. I have a feeling we?re back to a nuanced understanding/interpretation of Chaiklin on the ZPD. It?s not just scaffolding. Henry > On Sep 21, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > > I completely agree what you wrote Huw, and yes, you are right there is a > resistance story also. > > I think that the parent needs to observe when it is the right time to go > out rather than to stay in. > > Because at some point this may turn out to be a vicious circle. Not to > leave the child on his own for fear of unsuccess, whereas in fact it is > improvement in self-regulation (executive functions) who is to make the > child more successful. > > > > > > On 22 September 2015 at 01:12, Huw Lloyd wrote: > >> Yes, Ulvi, that seems like a reasonable hypothesis. Though there remains a >> great deal of scope for ambiguity. I wonder whether the dynamics you are >> exploring may be attributed to a somewhat mediocre motive vs a motive that >> would lean towards ignoring or contesting the parental mediation rather >> than passively submitting to it. Equally it seems reasonable that a >> student may sulkily submit to a passive role in response to an overbearing >> parent, but I suspect there would be a history of resistance to that. >> >> The kinds of transfers one can gain from learning physical skills include a >> confidence in successful learning strategies -- to discover that heartily >> getting involved in an undertaking is good, rather than sitting on the >> hands and doing as one is told. >> >> Best, >> Huw >> >> >> >> On 21 September 2015 at 22:04, Ulvi ??il wrote: >> >>> Life and new trials and experiences may have the potential for >> illimunating >>> certain facts otherwise staying unresolved. >>> >>> Suppose that a parent supports his child for piano lessons at home. The >>> child, unlike other,needed a lot of parent support until then to succeed >> in >>> conservatory and the parent always though that without him/her, the child >>> is not able to remember teacher's latest lesson's directives, to apply >> them >>> etc. >>> >>> But this means that the child finds every time the parent besides him >>> during lessons at home (even the parent takes not during the lesson with >>> teacher) and the child is used to be reminded by the parent for the most >>> critical things to be newly learned. >>> >>> The lesson before the last one is not so successful. Until that lesson >> the >>> child and the parent worked again together. So many mistakes on the part >> of >>> the child. >>> >>> But then, at return at home, they decide the child works on his own for >>> three days. Then the new lesson with teacher takes place. Zero parent >>> involvement. >>> >>> Then, this same passage is very well done and appreciated by the teacher >>> and the teacher says, is this the same child, do you have another >> identical >>> one at home. >>> >>> * >>> >>> So, my hypothesis is that, with such an excessinve parent involvement, >> who >>> does not possess confidence in the child to study appropriately, the >> child >>> may be chained and the process of developing his potential with adult >> may >>> turn to a lack of opportunity to develop his potential on his own, which >>> may be quite harmful for the child. >>> >>> May this hypothesis verified: when working with the parent, the child >> hands >>> over his attention ability to the adult, he shares this ability with him, >>> he delivers himself to the adult and is unable to take any initiative, is >>> not the manager of the learning process. >>> >>> But, as soon as the parent goes out, he knows that he is the sole >>> responsible for his own learning process and pays much more attention to >>> what he does, makes maximum effort to learn during the lesson with the >>> teacher, and to remember at home what the teacher taught during the >> lesson. >>> >>> In this case, I think the mistake on the part of the parent is the onset >> of >>> the functioning of self regulation during learning process. >>> >>> Does this over or excess involvement make any sense, or a place in the >>> literature? >>> >>> Ulvi >>> >> From lpscholar2@gmail.com Mon Sep 21 20:03:40 2015 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 20:03:40 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Over or excess involvement of parent - ZPD In-Reply-To: <5600bd4d.a287440a.6b06e.ffffafd1@mx.google.com> References: <38B870FE-BCC2-46FC-80CE-CA50D998C504@gmail.com> <5600bd4d.a287440a.6b06e.ffffafd1@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <5600c51a.0303450a.4c908.ffffb6de@mx.google.com> I want to focus on another key notion in Seth's interpretation of the phrase ( development within a given age). This is not only a temporal characteristic. It is also a psychological CATEGORY. (see page 7) This phrase indicates a period of development as a category with particular characteristics. These characteristic functions are not *pure* categories. Rather these psychological categories were formed historically in development of human societies and also formed in individual ontogenetic development of persons *within* THESE societies. Therefore the age periods will be expressing *regional* variations and do not express *universal* age periods. The social situation of development may shift characteristics of the indicated age periods and the indicated psychological *categories* assumed to be general categories. The relation of the temporal to the psychological in the concept of *age periods* seems an interesting question? Larry -----Original Message----- From: "Lplarry" Sent: ?2015-?09-?21 7:30 PM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Over or excess involvement of parent - ZPD Ulvi, This question of when to assist the child and when to allow independent struggle I find a complex question that is answered within the event of instruction in a moment by moment undergoing. If we take the common sense model (scaffolding) there are 3 assumptions. * generality assumption - scaffolding applies to all kinds of learning/instruction. * assistance assumption - learning is DEPENDENT on interventions by more competent others. * potential assumption - potential is a character of the individual (the subject) This common sense scaffolding notion of ZPD focuses on *tasks* learned. Seth Chaiklin challenges these 3 common sense assumptions, and shifts to "imitation" but this is not a shift to "copying" what is modeled. For Seth imitation requires previous *understanding* and without this previous *fore* - structure then imitation is not possible. So the potential assumption is located in previous "understanding" that is not yet under intentional direction or control. IF the child is capable of using the others guidance to then do the task *independently* then there is *understandable* imitation. The question then is to analyze whether the child already *understands* but is not yet able to articulate or interpret this acquired *understanding*. ( bring into a discourse gestalt or a verbal thought process that reflects the child developing a new quality (developments) to the *felt* understanding that can be imitated (not copied) as the expression of being in transition to developing a new formation that brings what is already a *felt* understanding to conscious awareness and use. This is how I interpret reading Seth's article. Larry From: HENRY SHONERD Sent: ?2015-?09-?21 6:10 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Over or excess involvement of parent - ZPD Great questions and answers! I am wondering about personality, age and cultural differences here. And don?t crises affect both the child and the adult in ways that make development difficult, no matter how sensitive the adult is. I have a feeling we?re back to a nuanced understanding/interpretation of Chaiklin on the ZPD. It?s not just scaffolding. Henry > On Sep 21, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > > I completely agree what you wrote Huw, and yes, you are right there is a > resistance story also. > > I think that the parent needs to observe when it is the right time to go > out rather than to stay in. > > Because at some point this may turn out to be a vicious circle. Not to > leave the child on his own for fear of unsuccess, whereas in fact it is > improvement in self-regulation (executive functions) who is to make the > child more successful. > > > > > > On 22 September 2015 at 01:12, Huw Lloyd wrote: > >> Yes, Ulvi, that seems like a reasonable hypothesis. Though there remains a >> great deal of scope for ambiguity. I wonder whether the dynamics you are >> exploring may be attributed to a somewhat mediocre motive vs a motive that >> would lean towards ignoring or contesting the parental mediation rather >> than passively submitting to it. Equally it seems reasonable that a >> student may sulkily submit to a passive role in response to an overbearing >> parent, but I suspect there would be a history of resistance to that. >> >> The kinds of transfers one can gain from learning physical skills include a >> confidence in successful learning strategies -- to discover that heartily >> getting involved in an undertaking is good, rather than sitting on the >> hands and doing as one is told. >> >> Best, >> Huw >> >> >> >> On 21 September 2015 at 22:04, Ulvi ??il wrote: >> >>> Life and new trials and experiences may have the potential for >> illimunating >>> certain facts otherwise staying unresolved. >>> >>> Suppose that a parent supports his child for piano lessons at home. The >>> child, unlike other,needed a lot of parent support until then to succeed >> in >>> conservatory and the parent always though that without him/her, the child >>> is not able to remember teacher's latest lesson's directives, to apply >> them >>> etc. >>> >>> But this means that the child finds every time the parent besides him >>> during lessons at home (even the parent takes not during the lesson with >>> teacher) and the child is used to be reminded by the parent for the most >>> critical things to be newly learned. >>> >>> The lesson before the last one is not so successful. Until that lesson >> the >>> child and the parent worked again together. So many mistakes on the part >> of >>> the child. >>> >>> But then, at return at home, they decide the child works on his own for >>> three days. Then the new lesson with teacher takes place. Zero parent >>> involvement. >>> >>> Then, this same passage is very well done and appreciated by the teacher >>> and the teacher says, is this the same child, do you have another >> identical >>> one at home. >>> >>> * >>> >>> So, my hypothesis is that, with such an excessinve parent involvement, >> who >>> does not possess confidence in the child to study appropriately, the >> child >>> may be chained and the process of developing his potential with adult >> may >>> turn to a lack of opportunity to develop his potential on his own, which >>> may be quite harmful for the child. >>> >>> May this hypothesis verified: when working with the parent, the child >> hands >>> over his attention ability to the adult, he shares this ability with him, >>> he delivers himself to the adult and is unable to take any initiative, is >>> not the manager of the learning process. >>> >>> But, as soon as the parent goes out, he knows that he is the sole >>> responsible for his own learning process and pays much more attention to >>> what he does, makes maximum effort to learn during the lesson with the >>> teacher, and to remember at home what the teacher taught during the >> lesson. >>> >>> In this case, I think the mistake on the part of the parent is the onset >> of >>> the functioning of self regulation during learning process. >>> >>> Does this over or excess involvement make any sense, or a place in the >>> literature? >>> >>> Ulvi >>> >> From dkellogg60@gmail.com Mon Sep 21 21:37:37 2015 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 13:37:37 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Over or excess involvement of parent - ZPD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Henry: a) Complex psychological functions are part and parcel of what Vygotsky calls psychological systems. For example, in an infant, affect and perception are still not differentiated. But in older children affect and perception, differentiated, can be linked up to other functions: affect to memory, for example, and perception to speech. This is what makes conscious, de-automatized control of a the different aspects of a complex function possible (we can will ourselves to remember pleasant memories, and we can "listen and repeat" in language learning). But the goal of fingering in piano playing, typing, and handwriting is unconscious, automatic control. b) Complex psychological functions are mediated and then actually initiated by language. For example, in an infant perception is not verbal perception--what the infant sees is not a book but a bound set of paper sheets for tearing; not a watch, but a shiny object that can be mouthed and almost but not quite swallowed. For an older child, the word meaning of 'book" calls up certain memories which are often highly colored with imagery (in my case, with my father's voice reading French comic books to me when I was a child). But if I describe a well-ornamented acquaintance as a "walking chandelier", it is word meanings that produce visual and sound images. Fingering in piano playing, typing and handwriting, when it is separated from reading sheet music, writing an e-mail, or composing a shopping list, is not mediated or initiated by language. c) Because they have a common basis in word meanings, complex psychological functions are easily integrated with each other. For example, an infant who learns to recognize her or his mother's voice will not necessarily be able to recognize his or her nanny's face. Similarly, a child who knows the fingerings on the piano will not necessarily be able to find similar notes on a violin. But a child who can read music can "read" equally well in piano and piccolo. David Kellogg For the adult reading a On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 10:21 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > How do we know that fingering is NOT a complex psychological function in > the development of ability on the piano? > With respect, > Henry > > > On Sep 21, 2015, at 4:34 PM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > > > > I tend to answer your question in the affirmative David, I think that, > > while working alone, the child has the opportunity to think, s/he is > > allowed to think, to evaluate, s/he is free to do so while with parent, > > s/he is constrained to do the best possible. And I think that to be able > to > > think makes the child nearer to musicality. > > And this during the lesson with the teacher also that more musicality or > > attention to musicality is paid. > > > > For the difference btw bike, golf and piano and writing, may it be too > much > > speculative if I hypothesize that the latter seem to be more specifically > > or closely, intensely related with neural substrates. > > > > On 22 September 2015 at 00:57, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > >> Dear Ulvi: > >> > >> Well, the literature I've read is contradictory. On the one hand, there > is > >> that famous Brazilian study on building model farms. One group was > >> "scaffolded" by their parents and the other by skilled elementary school > >> teachers. The parents tended to elbow the children aside and make the > >> models themselves (so as not to waste the precious clay), but the > teachers > >> tended to stand back and let the kids have a go. The result was that the > >> teacher scaffolded group attained much higher levels of self-regulation. > >> > >> In contrast, Askew et al notes that teachers who are quite skillful at > >> scaffolding their own children at home do not actually use scaffolding > >> strategies in the classroom (because of time pressure and the presence > of > >> too many different learners with different needs). The assumption is > that > >> delicate scaffolding is an effective strategy. Something similar appears > >> when we look at "scaffolding" research in foreign language learning--the > >> more delicate the scaffolding, the more effective it is, whatever that > >> means. > >> > >> Vygotsky, however, is not contradictory at all. Even in the famous > passage > >> on p. 86, he is very offhand and casual about the different strategies > >> which can be used in teaching (leading questions, starting solutions, > doing > >> demonstrations) and treats the degrees of freedom in collaboration as an > >> empirical problem, to be worked out on a case by case basis. He even > points > >> out that a child at home who remembers the way that a teacher solved a > math > >> problem on the board and uses it to solve a problem is "in > collaboration". > >> See also his use of different kinds of "introvolution" at the end of > >> Chapter Five of HDHMF. > >> > >> But--here's MY question. Vygotsky often contrasts particular physical > >> skills (bike riding, playing golf, type-writing) to psychological > >> development, and he makes it very clear that the former play no part in > the > >> zone of proximal development, at least for the school age child, because > >> they are not developmental. On the other hand, he also compares > learning to > >> play the piano with learning to write, where finger skills do not play a > >> part in the zone of proximal development, but the psychological > functions > >> involved in musical and literary awareness do. > >> > >> Instead of considering that what happens when the child works alone is a > >> change in the source and the quality of motivation, couldn't we say that > >> what happens is that the child is able to get beyond a fixation on > >> fingering and understand music as a complex psychological function? > >> > >> David Kellogg > >> > >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > >> > >>> Sorry, at the very end, it should have been, lack of onset of the > >>> functioning... > >>> > >>> On 22 September 2015 at 00:04, Ulvi ??il wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Life and new trials and experiences may have the potential for > >>>> illimunating certain facts otherwise staying unresolved. > >>>> > >>>> Suppose that a parent supports his child for piano lessons at home. > The > >>>> child, unlike other,needed a lot of parent support until then to > >> succeed > >>> in > >>>> conservatory and the parent always though that without him/her, the > >> child > >>>> is not able to remember teacher's latest lesson's directives, to apply > >>> them > >>>> etc. > >>>> > >>>> But this means that the child finds every time the parent besides him > >>>> during lessons at home (even the parent takes not during the lesson > >> with > >>>> teacher) and the child is used to be reminded by the parent for the > >> most > >>>> critical things to be newly learned. > >>>> > >>>> The lesson before the last one is not so successful. Until that lesson > >>> the > >>>> child and the parent worked again together. So many mistakes on the > >> part > >>> of > >>>> the child. > >>>> > >>>> But then, at return at home, they decide the child works on his own > for > >>>> three days. Then the new lesson with teacher takes place. Zero parent > >>>> involvement. > >>>> > >>>> Then, this same passage is very well done and appreciated by the > >> teacher > >>>> and the teacher says, is this the same child, do you have another > >>> identical > >>>> one at home. > >>>> > >>>> * > >>>> > >>>> So, my hypothesis is that, with such an excessinve parent involvement, > >>> who > >>>> does not possess confidence in the child to study appropriately, the > >>> child > >>>> may be chained and the process of developing his potential with adult > >>> may > >>>> turn to a lack of opportunity to develop his potential on his own, > >> which > >>>> may be quite harmful for the child. > >>>> > >>>> May this hypothesis verified: when working with the parent, the child > >>>> hands over his attention ability to the adult, he shares this ability > >>> with > >>>> him, he delivers himself to the adult and is unable to take any > >>> initiative, > >>>> is not the manager of the learning process. > >>>> > >>>> But, as soon as the parent goes out, he knows that he is the sole > >>>> responsible for his own learning process and pays much more attention > >> to > >>>> what he does, makes maximum effort to learn during the lesson with the > >>>> teacher, and to remember at home what the teacher taught during the > >>> lesson. > >>>> > >>>> In this case, I think the mistake on the part of the parent is the > >> onset > >>>> of the functioning of self regulation during learning process. > >>>> > >>>> Does this over or excess involvement make any sense, or a place in the > >>>> literature? > >>>> > >>>> Ulvi > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > From hshonerd@gmail.com Tue Sep 22 15:48:08 2015 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 16:48:08 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Over or excess involvement of parent - ZPD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David, Thank you for your thoughtful explanation of why fingering of the keys of a piano is not a higher psychological function! You say, ?...the goal of fingering in piano playing, typing and handwriting is unconscious, automatic control.? But is such mastery possible without going through a controlled phase? Isn?t such control evidence of a higher psychological process? I don?t have my mind made up on this. But let me suggest that you have given prototypical extremes of higher psychological processes and motor processes, but I think the difference can be construed as being on a continuum. This would be in line with the principle of embodied cognition espoused by cogntive linguistics. My post or may not, be off thread. Or it may be an extension of it. I am thinking of the work K.A.Ericsson on deliberate practice, who has researched the path to mastery of elite musicians. This seems to connect with Ulvi?s start to the thread: Parents vs. music teachers. What kind of scaffolding works best, and by whom? And what is the connection between comprehension and production of a ?complex process?? Isn?t this what you are getting at in linking perception and speech? Henry > On Sep 21, 2015, at 10:37 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > Henry: > > a) Complex psychological functions are part and parcel of what Vygotsky > calls psychological systems. For example, in an infant, affect and > perception are still not differentiated. But in older children affect and > perception, differentiated, can be linked up to other functions: affect to > memory, for example, and perception to speech. This is what makes > conscious, de-automatized control of a the different aspects of a complex > function possible (we can will ourselves to remember pleasant memories, and > we can "listen and repeat" in language learning). But the goal of fingering > in piano playing, typing, and handwriting is unconscious, automatic > control. > > b) Complex psychological functions are mediated and then actually initiated > by language. For example, in an infant perception is not verbal > perception--what the infant sees is not a book but a bound set of paper > sheets for tearing; not a watch, but a shiny object that can be mouthed and > almost but not quite swallowed. For an older child, the word meaning of > 'book" calls up certain memories which are often highly colored with > imagery (in my case, with my father's voice reading French comic books to > me when I was a child). But if I describe a well-ornamented acquaintance as > a "walking chandelier", it is word meanings that produce visual and sound > images. Fingering in piano playing, typing and handwriting, when it is > separated from reading sheet music, writing an e-mail, or composing a > shopping list, is not mediated or initiated by language. > > c) Because they have a common basis in word meanings, complex psychological > functions are easily integrated with each other. For example, an infant who > learns to recognize her or his mother's voice will not necessarily be able > to recognize his or her nanny's face. Similarly, a child who knows the > fingerings on the piano will not necessarily be able to find similar notes > on a violin. But a child who can read music can "read" equally well in > piano and piccolo. > > David Kellogg > > For the adult reading a > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 10:21 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > >> How do we know that fingering is NOT a complex psychological function in >> the development of ability on the piano? >> With respect, >> Henry >> >>> On Sep 21, 2015, at 4:34 PM, Ulvi ??il wrote: >>> >>> I tend to answer your question in the affirmative David, I think that, >>> while working alone, the child has the opportunity to think, s/he is >>> allowed to think, to evaluate, s/he is free to do so while with parent, >>> s/he is constrained to do the best possible. And I think that to be able >> to >>> think makes the child nearer to musicality. >>> And this during the lesson with the teacher also that more musicality or >>> attention to musicality is paid. >>> >>> For the difference btw bike, golf and piano and writing, may it be too >> much >>> speculative if I hypothesize that the latter seem to be more specifically >>> or closely, intensely related with neural substrates. >>> >>> On 22 September 2015 at 00:57, David Kellogg >> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Ulvi: >>>> >>>> Well, the literature I've read is contradictory. On the one hand, there >> is >>>> that famous Brazilian study on building model farms. One group was >>>> "scaffolded" by their parents and the other by skilled elementary school >>>> teachers. The parents tended to elbow the children aside and make the >>>> models themselves (so as not to waste the precious clay), but the >> teachers >>>> tended to stand back and let the kids have a go. The result was that the >>>> teacher scaffolded group attained much higher levels of self-regulation. >>>> >>>> In contrast, Askew et al notes that teachers who are quite skillful at >>>> scaffolding their own children at home do not actually use scaffolding >>>> strategies in the classroom (because of time pressure and the presence >> of >>>> too many different learners with different needs). The assumption is >> that >>>> delicate scaffolding is an effective strategy. Something similar appears >>>> when we look at "scaffolding" research in foreign language learning--the >>>> more delicate the scaffolding, the more effective it is, whatever that >>>> means. >>>> >>>> Vygotsky, however, is not contradictory at all. Even in the famous >> passage >>>> on p. 86, he is very offhand and casual about the different strategies >>>> which can be used in teaching (leading questions, starting solutions, >> doing >>>> demonstrations) and treats the degrees of freedom in collaboration as an >>>> empirical problem, to be worked out on a case by case basis. He even >> points >>>> out that a child at home who remembers the way that a teacher solved a >> math >>>> problem on the board and uses it to solve a problem is "in >> collaboration". >>>> See also his use of different kinds of "introvolution" at the end of >>>> Chapter Five of HDHMF. >>>> >>>> But--here's MY question. Vygotsky often contrasts particular physical >>>> skills (bike riding, playing golf, type-writing) to psychological >>>> development, and he makes it very clear that the former play no part in >> the >>>> zone of proximal development, at least for the school age child, because >>>> they are not developmental. On the other hand, he also compares >> learning to >>>> play the piano with learning to write, where finger skills do not play a >>>> part in the zone of proximal development, but the psychological >> functions >>>> involved in musical and literary awareness do. >>>> >>>> Instead of considering that what happens when the child works alone is a >>>> change in the source and the quality of motivation, couldn't we say that >>>> what happens is that the child is able to get beyond a fixation on >>>> fingering and understand music as a complex psychological function? >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Ulvi ??il wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sorry, at the very end, it should have been, lack of onset of the >>>>> functioning... >>>>> >>>>> On 22 September 2015 at 00:04, Ulvi ??il wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Life and new trials and experiences may have the potential for >>>>>> illimunating certain facts otherwise staying unresolved. >>>>>> >>>>>> Suppose that a parent supports his child for piano lessons at home. >> The >>>>>> child, unlike other,needed a lot of parent support until then to >>>> succeed >>>>> in >>>>>> conservatory and the parent always though that without him/her, the >>>> child >>>>>> is not able to remember teacher's latest lesson's directives, to apply >>>>> them >>>>>> etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> But this means that the child finds every time the parent besides him >>>>>> during lessons at home (even the parent takes not during the lesson >>>> with >>>>>> teacher) and the child is used to be reminded by the parent for the >>>> most >>>>>> critical things to be newly learned. >>>>>> >>>>>> The lesson before the last one is not so successful. Until that lesson >>>>> the >>>>>> child and the parent worked again together. So many mistakes on the >>>> part >>>>> of >>>>>> the child. >>>>>> >>>>>> But then, at return at home, they decide the child works on his own >> for >>>>>> three days. Then the new lesson with teacher takes place. Zero parent >>>>>> involvement. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then, this same passage is very well done and appreciated by the >>>> teacher >>>>>> and the teacher says, is this the same child, do you have another >>>>> identical >>>>>> one at home. >>>>>> >>>>>> * >>>>>> >>>>>> So, my hypothesis is that, with such an excessinve parent involvement, >>>>> who >>>>>> does not possess confidence in the child to study appropriately, the >>>>> child >>>>>> may be chained and the process of developing his potential with adult >>>>> may >>>>>> turn to a lack of opportunity to develop his potential on his own, >>>> which >>>>>> may be quite harmful for the child. >>>>>> >>>>>> May this hypothesis verified: when working with the parent, the child >>>>>> hands over his attention ability to the adult, he shares this ability >>>>> with >>>>>> him, he delivers himself to the adult and is unable to take any >>>>> initiative, >>>>>> is not the manager of the learning process. >>>>>> >>>>>> But, as soon as the parent goes out, he knows that he is the sole >>>>>> responsible for his own learning process and pays much more attention >>>> to >>>>>> what he does, makes maximum effort to learn during the lesson with the >>>>>> teacher, and to remember at home what the teacher taught during the >>>>> lesson. >>>>>> >>>>>> In this case, I think the mistake on the part of the parent is the >>>> onset >>>>>> of the functioning of self regulation during learning process. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does this over or excess involvement make any sense, or a place in the >>>>>> literature? >>>>>> >>>>>> Ulvi >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >> >> From hshonerd@gmail.com Tue Sep 22 16:12:14 2015 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:12:14 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Over or excess involvement of parent - ZPD In-Reply-To: <5600bd4d.a287440a.6b06e.ffffafd1@mx.google.com> References: <38B870FE-BCC2-46FC-80CE-CA50D998C504@gmail.com> <5600bd4d.a287440a.6b06e.ffffafd1@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <7D98BD12-8028-4539-9342-D4BAEAC92AD8@gmail.com> Larry, I just shot off an email responding to David and realize that the final paragraph of my post totally resonates with what you have said below: understanding and imitation comprehension and production. I think it is appropriate that you have put imitation in scare quotes. These processes are creative, or so I think. Even my simplistic notion of ZPD as scaffolding (Bruner?s too, according to Chaiklin) had in mind honoring the creative potential and trajectory towards autonomy of the learner. Henry > On Sep 21, 2015, at 8:30 PM, Lplarry wrote: > > Ulvi, > This question of when to assist the child and when to allow independent struggle I find a complex question that is answered within the event of instruction in a moment by moment undergoing. > If we take the common sense model (scaffolding) there are 3 assumptions. > * generality assumption - scaffolding applies to all kinds of learning/instruction. > * assistance assumption - learning is DEPENDENT on interventions by more competent others. > * potential assumption - potential is a character of the individual (the subject) > > This common sense scaffolding notion of ZPD focuses on *tasks* learned. > > Seth Chaiklin challenges these 3 common sense assumptions, and shifts to "imitation" but this is not a shift to "copying" what is modeled. For Seth imitation requires previous *understanding* and without this previous *fore* - structure then imitation is not possible. > So the potential assumption is located in previous "understanding" that is not yet under intentional direction or control. > IF the child is capable of using the others guidance to then do the task *independently* then there is *understandable* imitation. > The question then is to analyze whether the child already *understands* but is not yet able to articulate or interpret this acquired *understanding*. ( bring into a discourse gestalt or a verbal thought process that reflects the child developing a new quality (developments) to the *felt* understanding that can be imitated (not copied) as the expression of being in transition to developing a new formation that brings what is already a *felt* understanding to conscious awareness and use. > This is how I interpret reading Seth's article. > Larry > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "HENRY SHONERD" > Sent: ?2015-?09-?21 6:10 PM > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Over or excess involvement of parent - ZPD > > Great questions and answers! I am wondering about personality, age and cultural differences here. And don?t crises affect both the child and the adult in ways that make development difficult, no matter how sensitive the adult is. I have a feeling we?re back to a nuanced understanding/interpretation of Chaiklin on the ZPD. It?s not just scaffolding. > Henry > >> On Sep 21, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Ulvi ??il wrote: >> >> I completely agree what you wrote Huw, and yes, you are right there is a >> resistance story also. >> >> I think that the parent needs to observe when it is the right time to go >> out rather than to stay in. >> >> Because at some point this may turn out to be a vicious circle. Not to >> leave the child on his own for fear of unsuccess, whereas in fact it is >> improvement in self-regulation (executive functions) who is to make the >> child more successful. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 22 September 2015 at 01:12, Huw Lloyd wrote: >> >>> Yes, Ulvi, that seems like a reasonable hypothesis. Though there remains a >>> great deal of scope for ambiguity. I wonder whether the dynamics you are >>> exploring may be attributed to a somewhat mediocre motive vs a motive that >>> would lean towards ignoring or contesting the parental mediation rather >>> than passively submitting to it. Equally it seems reasonable that a >>> student may sulkily submit to a passive role in response to an overbearing >>> parent, but I suspect there would be a history of resistance to that. >>> >>> The kinds of transfers one can gain from learning physical skills include a >>> confidence in successful learning strategies -- to discover that heartily >>> getting involved in an undertaking is good, rather than sitting on the >>> hands and doing as one is told. >>> >>> Best, >>> Huw >>> >>> >>> >>> On 21 September 2015 at 22:04, Ulvi ??il wrote: >>> >>>> Life and new trials and experiences may have the potential for >>> illimunating >>>> certain facts otherwise staying unresolved. >>>> >>>> Suppose that a parent supports his child for piano lessons at home. The >>>> child, unlike other,needed a lot of parent support until then to succeed >>> in >>>> conservatory and the parent always though that without him/her, the child >>>> is not able to remember teacher's latest lesson's directives, to apply >>> them >>>> etc. >>>> >>>> But this means that the child finds every time the parent besides him >>>> during lessons at home (even the parent takes not during the lesson with >>>> teacher) and the child is used to be reminded by the parent for the most >>>> critical things to be newly learned. >>>> >>>> The lesson before the last one is not so successful. Until that lesson >>> the >>>> child and the parent worked again together. So many mistakes on the part >>> of >>>> the child. >>>> >>>> But then, at return at home, they decide the child works on his own for >>>> three days. Then the new lesson with teacher takes place. Zero parent >>>> involvement. >>>> >>>> Then, this same passage is very well done and appreciated by the teacher >>>> and the teacher says, is this the same child, do you have another >>> identical >>>> one at home. >>>> >>>> * >>>> >>>> So, my hypothesis is that, with such an excessinve parent involvement, >>> who >>>> does not possess confidence in the child to study appropriately, the >>> child >>>> may be chained and the process of developing his potential with adult >>> may >>>> turn to a lack of opportunity to develop his potential on his own, which >>>> may be quite harmful for the child. >>>> >>>> May this hypothesis verified: when working with the parent, the child >>> hands >>>> over his attention ability to the adult, he shares this ability with him, >>>> he delivers himself to the adult and is unable to take any initiative, is >>>> not the manager of the learning process. >>>> >>>> But, as soon as the parent goes out, he knows that he is the sole >>>> responsible for his own learning process and pays much more attention to >>>> what he does, makes maximum effort to learn during the lesson with the >>>> teacher, and to remember at home what the teacher taught during the >>> lesson. >>>> >>>> In this case, I think the mistake on the part of the parent is the onset >>> of >>>> the functioning of self regulation during learning process. >>>> >>>> Does this over or excess involvement make any sense, or a place in the >>>> literature? >>>> >>>> Ulvi >>>> >>> > > From hshonerd@gmail.com Tue Sep 22 16:11:58 2015 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:11:58 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Over or excess involvement of parent - ZPD In-Reply-To: <5600bd4d.a287440a.6b06e.ffffafd1@mx.google.com> References: <38B870FE-BCC2-46FC-80CE-CA50D998C504@gmail.com> <5600bd4d.a287440a.6b06e.ffffafd1@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Larry, I just shot off an email responding to David and realize that the final paragraph of my post totally resonates with what you have said below: understanding and imitation comprehension and production. I think it is appropriate that you have put imitation in scare quotes. These processes are creative, or so I think. Even my simplistic notion of ZPD as scaffolding (Bruner?s too, according to Chaiklin) had in mind honoring the creative potential and trajectory towards autonomy of the learner. Henry > On Sep 21, 2015, at 8:30 PM, Lplarry wrote: > > Ulvi, > This question of when to assist the child and when to allow independent struggle I find a complex question that is answered within the event of instruction in a moment by moment undergoing. > If we take the common sense model (scaffolding) there are 3 assumptions. > * generality assumption - scaffolding applies to all kinds of learning/instruction. > * assistance assumption - learning is DEPENDENT on interventions by more competent others. > * potential assumption - potential is a character of the individual (the subject) > > This common sense scaffolding notion of ZPD focuses on *tasks* learned. > > Seth Chaiklin challenges these 3 common sense assumptions, and shifts to "imitation" but this is not a shift to "copying" what is modeled. For Seth imitation requires previous *understanding* and without this previous *fore* - structure then imitation is not possible. > So the potential assumption is located in previous "understanding" that is not yet under intentional direction or control. > IF the child is capable of using the others guidance to then do the task *independently* then there is *understandable* imitation. > The question then is to analyze whether the child already *understands* but is not yet able to articulate or interpret this acquired *understanding*. ( bring into a discourse gestalt or a verbal thought process that reflects the child developing a new quality (developments) to the *felt* understanding that can be imitated (not copied) as the expression of being in transition to developing a new formation that brings what is already a *felt* understanding to conscious awareness and use. > This is how I interpret reading Seth's article. > Larry > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "HENRY SHONERD" > Sent: ?2015-?09-?21 6:10 PM > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Over or excess involvement of parent - ZPD > > Great questions and answers! I am wondering about personality, age and cultural differences here. And don?t crises affect both the child and the adult in ways that make development difficult, no matter how sensitive the adult is. I have a feeling we?re back to a nuanced understanding/interpretation of Chaiklin on the ZPD. It?s not just scaffolding. > Henry > >> On Sep 21, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Ulvi ??il wrote: >> >> I completely agree what you wrote Huw, and yes, you are right there is a >> resistance story also. >> >> I think that the parent needs to observe when it is the right time to go >> out rather than to stay in. >> >> Because at some point this may turn out to be a vicious circle. Not to >> leave the child on his own for fear of unsuccess, whereas in fact it is >> improvement in self-regulation (executive functions) who is to make the >> child more successful. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 22 September 2015 at 01:12, Huw Lloyd wrote: >> >>> Yes, Ulvi, that seems like a reasonable hypothesis. Though there remains a >>> great deal of scope for ambiguity. I wonder whether the dynamics you are >>> exploring may be attributed to a somewhat mediocre motive vs a motive that >>> would lean towards ignoring or contesting the parental mediation rather >>> than passively submitting to it. Equally it seems reasonable that a >>> student may sulkily submit to a passive role in response to an overbearing >>> parent, but I suspect there would be a history of resistance to that. >>> >>> The kinds of transfers one can gain from learning physical skills include a >>> confidence in successful learning strategies -- to discover that heartily >>> getting involved in an undertaking is good, rather than sitting on the >>> hands and doing as one is told. >>> >>> Best, >>> Huw >>> >>> >>> >>> On 21 September 2015 at 22:04, Ulvi ??il wrote: >>> >>>> Life and new trials and experiences may have the potential for >>> illimunating >>>> certain facts otherwise staying unresolved. >>>> >>>> Suppose that a parent supports his child for piano lessons at home. The >>>> child, unlike other,needed a lot of parent support until then to succeed >>> in >>>> conservatory and the parent always though that without him/her, the child >>>> is not able to remember teacher's latest lesson's directives, to apply >>> them >>>> etc. >>>> >>>> But this means that the child finds every time the parent besides him >>>> during lessons at home (even the parent takes not during the lesson with >>>> teacher) and the child is used to be reminded by the parent for the most >>>> critical things to be newly learned. >>>> >>>> The lesson before the last one is not so successful. Until that lesson >>> the >>>> child and the parent worked again together. So many mistakes on the part >>> of >>>> the child. >>>> >>>> But then, at return at home, they decide the child works on his own for >>>> three days. Then the new lesson with teacher takes place. Zero parent >>>> involvement. >>>> >>>> Then, this same passage is very well done and appreciated by the teacher >>>> and the teacher says, is this the same child, do you have another >>> identical >>>> one at home. >>>> >>>> * >>>> >>>> So, my hypothesis is that, with such an excessinve parent involvement, >>> who >>>> does not possess confidence in the child to study appropriately, the >>> child >>>> may be chained and the process of developing his potential with adult >>> may >>>> turn to a lack of opportunity to develop his potential on his own, which >>>> may be quite harmful for the child. >>>> >>>> May this hypothesis verified: when working with the parent, the child >>> hands >>>> over his attention ability to the adult, he shares this ability with him, >>>> he delivers himself to the adult and is unable to take any initiative, is >>>> not the manager of the learning process. >>>> >>>> But, as soon as the parent goes out, he knows that he is the sole >>>> responsible for his own learning process and pays much more attention to >>>> what he does, makes maximum effort to learn during the lesson with the >>>> teacher, and to remember at home what the teacher taught during the >>> lesson. >>>> >>>> In this case, I think the mistake on the part of the parent is the onset >>> of >>>> the functioning of self regulation during learning process. >>>> >>>> Does this over or excess involvement make any sense, or a place in the >>>> literature? >>>> >>>> Ulvi >>>> >>> > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Tue Sep 22 17:57:19 2015 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Larry Purss) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:57:19 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Over or excess involvement of parent - ZPD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Henry, Is your question possibly reflected within two aspects? 1] zone of proximal *learning* 2] zone of proximal "development" The distinction Seth was elaborating. the response may be answered differently within each approach On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:48 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > David, > Thank you for your thoughtful explanation of why fingering of the keys of > a piano is not a higher psychological function! You say, ?...the goal of > fingering in piano playing, typing and handwriting is unconscious, > automatic control.? But is such mastery possible without going through a > controlled phase? Isn?t such control evidence of a higher psychological > process? I don?t have my mind made up on this. But let me suggest that you > have given prototypical extremes of higher psychological processes and > motor processes, but I think the difference can be construed as being on a > continuum. This would be in line with the principle of embodied cognition > espoused by cogntive linguistics. > > My post or may not, be off thread. Or it may be an extension of it. I am > thinking of the work K.A.Ericsson on deliberate practice, who has > researched the path to mastery of elite musicians. This seems to connect > with Ulvi?s start to the thread: Parents vs. music teachers. What kind of > scaffolding works best, and by whom? And what is the connection between > comprehension and production of a ?complex process?? Isn?t this what you > are getting at in linking perception and speech? > > Henry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 21, 2015, at 10:37 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > > Henry: > > > > a) Complex psychological functions are part and parcel of what Vygotsky > > calls psychological systems. For example, in an infant, affect and > > perception are still not differentiated. But in older children affect and > > perception, differentiated, can be linked up to other functions: affect > to > > memory, for example, and perception to speech. This is what makes > > conscious, de-automatized control of a the different aspects of a complex > > function possible (we can will ourselves to remember pleasant memories, > and > > we can "listen and repeat" in language learning). But the goal of > fingering > > in piano playing, typing, and handwriting is unconscious, automatic > > control. > > > > b) Complex psychological functions are mediated and then actually > initiated > > by language. For example, in an infant perception is not verbal > > perception--what the infant sees is not a book but a bound set of paper > > sheets for tearing; not a watch, but a shiny object that can be mouthed > and > > almost but not quite swallowed. For an older child, the word meaning of > > 'book" calls up certain memories which are often highly colored with > > imagery (in my case, with my father's voice reading French comic books to > > me when I was a child). But if I describe a well-ornamented acquaintance > as > > a "walking chandelier", it is word meanings that produce visual and sound > > images. Fingering in piano playing, typing and handwriting, when it is > > separated from reading sheet music, writing an e-mail, or composing a > > shopping list, is not mediated or initiated by language. > > > > c) Because they have a common basis in word meanings, complex > psychological > > functions are easily integrated with each other. For example, an infant > who > > learns to recognize her or his mother's voice will not necessarily be > able > > to recognize his or her nanny's face. Similarly, a child who knows the > > fingerings on the piano will not necessarily be able to find similar > notes > > on a violin. But a child who can read music can "read" equally well in > > piano and piccolo. > > > > David Kellogg > > > > For the adult reading a > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 10:21 AM, HENRY SHONERD > wrote: > > > >> How do we know that fingering is NOT a complex psychological function in > >> the development of ability on the piano? > >> With respect, > >> Henry > >> > >>> On Sep 21, 2015, at 4:34 PM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > >>> > >>> I tend to answer your question in the affirmative David, I think that, > >>> while working alone, the child has the opportunity to think, s/he is > >>> allowed to think, to evaluate, s/he is free to do so while with parent, > >>> s/he is constrained to do the best possible. And I think that to be > able > >> to > >>> think makes the child nearer to musicality. > >>> And this during the lesson with the teacher also that more musicality > or > >>> attention to musicality is paid. > >>> > >>> For the difference btw bike, golf and piano and writing, may it be too > >> much > >>> speculative if I hypothesize that the latter seem to be more > specifically > >>> or closely, intensely related with neural substrates. > >>> > >>> On 22 September 2015 at 00:57, David Kellogg > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Dear Ulvi: > >>>> > >>>> Well, the literature I've read is contradictory. On the one hand, > there > >> is > >>>> that famous Brazilian study on building model farms. One group was > >>>> "scaffolded" by their parents and the other by skilled elementary > school > >>>> teachers. The parents tended to elbow the children aside and make the > >>>> models themselves (so as not to waste the precious clay), but the > >> teachers > >>>> tended to stand back and let the kids have a go. The result was that > the > >>>> teacher scaffolded group attained much higher levels of > self-regulation. > >>>> > >>>> In contrast, Askew et al notes that teachers who are quite skillful at > >>>> scaffolding their own children at home do not actually use scaffolding > >>>> strategies in the classroom (because of time pressure and the presence > >> of > >>>> too many different learners with different needs). The assumption is > >> that > >>>> delicate scaffolding is an effective strategy. Something similar > appears > >>>> when we look at "scaffolding" research in foreign language > learning--the > >>>> more delicate the scaffolding, the more effective it is, whatever that > >>>> means. > >>>> > >>>> Vygotsky, however, is not contradictory at all. Even in the famous > >> passage > >>>> on p. 86, he is very offhand and casual about the different strategies > >>>> which can be used in teaching (leading questions, starting solutions, > >> doing > >>>> demonstrations) and treats the degrees of freedom in collaboration as > an > >>>> empirical problem, to be worked out on a case by case basis. He even > >> points > >>>> out that a child at home who remembers the way that a teacher solved a > >> math > >>>> problem on the board and uses it to solve a problem is "in > >> collaboration". > >>>> See also his use of different kinds of "introvolution" at the end of > >>>> Chapter Five of HDHMF. > >>>> > >>>> But--here's MY question. Vygotsky often contrasts particular physical > >>>> skills (bike riding, playing golf, type-writing) to psychological > >>>> development, and he makes it very clear that the former play no part > in > >> the > >>>> zone of proximal development, at least for the school age child, > because > >>>> they are not developmental. On the other hand, he also compares > >> learning to > >>>> play the piano with learning to write, where finger skills do not > play a > >>>> part in the zone of proximal development, but the psychological > >> functions > >>>> involved in musical and literary awareness do. > >>>> > >>>> Instead of considering that what happens when the child works alone > is a > >>>> change in the source and the quality of motivation, couldn't we say > that > >>>> what happens is that the child is able to get beyond a fixation on > >>>> fingering and understand music as a complex psychological function? > >>>> > >>>> David Kellogg > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Ulvi ??il > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Sorry, at the very end, it should have been, lack of onset of the > >>>>> functioning... > >>>>> > >>>>> On 22 September 2015 at 00:04, Ulvi ??il > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Life and new trials and experiences may have the potential for > >>>>>> illimunating certain facts otherwise staying unresolved. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Suppose that a parent supports his child for piano lessons at home. > >> The > >>>>>> child, unlike other,needed a lot of parent support until then to > >>>> succeed > >>>>> in > >>>>>> conservatory and the parent always though that without him/her, the > >>>> child > >>>>>> is not able to remember teacher's latest lesson's directives, to > apply > >>>>> them > >>>>>> etc. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But this means that the child finds every time the parent besides > him > >>>>>> during lessons at home (even the parent takes not during the lesson > >>>> with > >>>>>> teacher) and the child is used to be reminded by the parent for the > >>>> most > >>>>>> critical things to be newly learned. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The lesson before the last one is not so successful. Until that > lesson > >>>>> the > >>>>>> child and the parent worked again together. So many mistakes on the > >>>> part > >>>>> of > >>>>>> the child. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But then, at return at home, they decide the child works on his own > >> for > >>>>>> three days. Then the new lesson with teacher takes place. Zero > parent > >>>>>> involvement. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Then, this same passage is very well done and appreciated by the > >>>> teacher > >>>>>> and the teacher says, is this the same child, do you have another > >>>>> identical > >>>>>> one at home. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> * > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So, my hypothesis is that, with such an excessinve parent > involvement, > >>>>> who > >>>>>> does not possess confidence in the child to study appropriately, the > >>>>> child > >>>>>> may be chained and the process of developing his potential with > adult > >>>>> may > >>>>>> turn to a lack of opportunity to develop his potential on his own, > >>>> which > >>>>>> may be quite harmful for the child. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> May this hypothesis verified: when working with the parent, the > child > >>>>>> hands over his attention ability to the adult, he shares this > ability > >>>>> with > >>>>>> him, he delivers himself to the adult and is unable to take any > >>>>> initiative, > >>>>>> is not the manager of the learning process. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But, as soon as the parent goes out, he knows that he is the sole > >>>>>> responsible for his own learning process and pays much more > attention > >>>> to > >>>>>> what he does, makes maximum effort to learn during the lesson with > the > >>>>>> teacher, and to remember at home what the teacher taught during the > >>>>> lesson. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In this case, I think the mistake on the part of the parent is the > >>>> onset > >>>>>> of the functioning of self regulation during learning process. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Does this over or excess involvement make any sense, or a place in > the > >>>>>> literature? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ulvi > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >> > > > From smago@uga.edu Wed Sep 23 11:10:16 2015 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:10:16 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] =?utf-8?q?FW=3A_Presentation_JOURNAL_Papeles_de_Trabajo_sobre_Cu?= =?utf-8?q?ltura_=2C_Educaci=C3=B3n_y_Desarrollo_Humano_/_Working_Papers_o?= =?utf-8?q?n_Cu_lture=2C_Education=2C_and_Human_Development=2C?= In-Reply-To: References: <50217.84.88.152.81.1442917267.squirrel@montseny.udg.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:21 AM, MOISES ESTEBAN-GUITART > wrote: Dear members of the scientific committee of the Journal Papeles de Trabajo sobre Cultura, Educaci?n y Desarrollo Humano / Working Papers on Culture, Education, and Human Development, On behalf of the editorial board, I would like to thank you for your support and acceptance to join the scientific committee of the Journal. Your acceptance will certainly add value to the Journal and this will make possible to visualize an international community which has certain convergences around human behavior which were largely reduced during the 20th century both to the behaviorist ?black box? and to the cognitivist ?mechanism?. Aristotle said that ?Being can be said in many ways? and elusive and complex concepts such as ?culture? can also be conceptualized in many different ways: social institutions, cultural artifacts, lifestyles or sociocultural practices. In any case, I suspect that all of us share a special feeling for the critical role that both culture and education have for the development of higher psychological processes and ultimately for the human mind and behavior. Secondly, I would like to acknowledge and thank the work done by David Poveda, founder of the journal, and also to the editorial team of the "Universidad Aut?noma de Madrid". David has now taken the role of editor of the Journal "Linguistics and Education" and it is my honor and pleasure to inherit the editorial responsibility of the Journal that David began 10 years ago, in 2005, and which was edited, with the help of his team, in an exceptional way and with great success. I would like to congratulate and thank David and wish him good luck in his new publishing challenges. Attached below you will find the link to the new website where you will be able to see your names as part of the scientific committee as well as the accepted papers, instructions for authors and reviewers and others: http://psicologia.udg.edu/PTCEDH/presentation.asp The Journal has now opened a call for articles to be reviewed in any of the three modalities previewed. The articles to be reviewed can be sent in both Spanish and English to the following address: revista.ptcedh@udg.edu Do not hesitate to send an article, if you consider it appropriate, as well as to facilitate information to colleagues and friends so they can send their work. The Journal, as you will see, is oriented towards conceptualization work, empirical analysis (preferably qualitative studies) and social and educational intervention from a sociocultural perspective. In this sense, the Journal sympathizes with other existing journals such as "Culture & Psychology", "Mind, Culture and Activity", "Learning, Culture and Social Interaction" or "Human Development?, of which some of you are also editors. The particularity of Working Papers is that it is one of the few journals that accept articles in Spanish from a Vygotskian perspective emphasizing the relationship between human development, culture and education. We hope to be able to contribute towards reflection and putting into action a way of understanding human condition in which we are the result of participation in educational practice ( both in schools and beyond them) in which we appropriate of the artifacts which orient, extend and motivate higher psychological processes such as verbal thought, identity or intentional memory. Proactive processes and mechanisms that mark the psychological development of people as well as the particular relationship among them and the ecological niches where human activity is located, distributed and exists. I just want to thank you again for your willingness and generosity. Best regards, Editorial board of "Papeles de Trabajo sobre Cultura, Educaci?n y Desarrollo Humano / Working Papers on Culture, Education, and Human Development" From smago@uga.edu Sun Sep 27 04:01:12 2015 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:01:12 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] http://monoskop.org/images/7/7b/Bakhtin_Mikhail_Speech_Genres_and_Other_Late_Essays.pdf Message-ID: http://monoskop.org/images/7/7b/Bakhtin_Mikhail_Speech_Genres_and_Other_Late_Essays.pdf I found a copy of Bakhtin's Speech Genres and Other Late Essays online. Enjoy,p From Peg.Griffin@att.net Sun Sep 27 08:06:20 2015 From: Peg.Griffin@att.net (Peg Griffin) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:06:20 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: http://monoskop.org/images/7/7b/Bakhtin_Mikhail_Speech_Genres_and_Other_Late_Essays.pdf In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001901d0f936$11dcd620$35968260$@att.net> Thanks! -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Peter Smagorinsky Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2015 7:01 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity (xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu) Subject: [Xmca-l] http://monoskop.org/images/7/7b/Bakhtin_Mikhail_Speech_Genres_and_Other_Late _Essays.pdf http://monoskop.org/images/7/7b/Bakhtin_Mikhail_Speech_Genres_and_Other_Late _Essays.pdf I found a copy of Bakhtin's Speech Genres and Other Late Essays online. Enjoy,p From jalevin@ucsd.edu Mon Sep 28 13:24:33 2015 From: jalevin@ucsd.edu (Jim Levin) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:24:33 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Assistant Professor position in Education Studies at UC San Diego Message-ID: <959DBF3E-9E04-4487-BEAA-0C17F3B1BC83@ucsd.edu> The Department of Education Studies at UC San Diego is recruiting an Assistant Professor with expertise in Teacher Learning, Leadership, and Policy to join our faculty in July 2016. The successful candidate will join the Department of Education Studies during the inaugural year of our new PhD program in Education: Transforming Education in a Diverse Society. Detailed information about the department, the position, and the application process is available at: http://eds.ucsd.edu/resources/faculty-recruitment.html If you are interested in this position, we welcome your application. As well, thanks in advance for forwarding this email to students, colleagues, alumni, and others. The search committee will begin reviewing applications on 1 November 2015. From smago@uga.edu Mon Sep 28 14:11:33 2015 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 21:11:33 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] opening for an assistant professor (tenure track) in Chinese SLA/applied linguistics: Message-ID: FYI--we have an opening for an assistant professor (tenure track) in Chinese SLA/applied linguistics: http://asian.washington.edu/news/2015/09/23/position-announcement-assistant-professor-chinese-linguistics -- Amy Snyder Ohta, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Japanese Applied Linguistics Chair, Graduate Certificate Program in Second/Foreign Language Teaching and Interdisciplinary Committee on Second Language Studies University of Washington Dept. of Asian Languages & Literature Box 353521, Seattle, WA 98195 Office phone: (206) 543-6315 Dept. Office: (206) 543-4996 Office location: Gowen 247 email: aohta@uw.edu http://depts.washington.edu/asianll/people/faculty/aohta.html https://www.facebook.com/aohta -- Victoria Hasko, Ph.D. Associate Professor of TESOL & World Language Education Graduate Coordinator Department of Language and Literacy Education Affiliated faculty in Linguistics, Department of Germanic & Slavic Studies 315 Aderhold Hall University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602-7123 Tel. 706-542-4525 From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Tue Sep 29 05:13:14 2015 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 13:13:14 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Psychology of handwriting -- mobile app. Message-ID: Dear All I am writing a smart-phone / tablet application for practising handwriting and related activities and have a few questions (below) which some of you may have some feeling for. The initial audience I had in mind for the application are children of adults owning ipads and the like. There are, I am aware, numerous issues and scope for criticism with respect to promoting this kind of application and pastime. However, given that there is a young user base for tablets, I reason that we might as well embrace the technology and try to put forward some good products, rather than the 'pop the balloon' games that, I imagine, populate many of these mobile devices. I am currently at the stage of implementing the main psychological component of the application, which will initially be reminiscent of experiments undertaken by Gal'perin. What I am hoping for is to gather a large set of longitudinal transcriptions of writing fluency across a potentially rather wide user base (i.e anyone with a smart phone/tablet), in order to undertake a robust microgenetic study of the development in handwriting and the analytical skills that accompany it. It is my also my thought that this study will serve as a good exemplary model for applying the genetic analysis that I have been sketching out. Given the challenges of implementing the application, I have not spent much time trying to find out what presently exists within the apps domain or, indeed, whether the psychological research has begun to embrace such devices for collating data. Here are my questions: 1. What's already out there in the mobile apps world? Are they informed by any psychological theory? 2. Under what circumstances would you use or experiment with such an application? E.g. Does it need to be freely available or would a small cost be indicative of quality? 3. Are there any high profile studies of the psychology of handwriting that you would want, or expect, the application design to be informed by? Presently I am working along the lines delineated by Gal'perin, though I hope to return soon to see what Luria has written about this too. 4. Is this the sort of experiment that merits publication in a particular journal? It is my hope that I will get several papers published from this effort as a whole. Best, Huw From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Tue Sep 29 13:24:53 2015 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:24:53 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Psychology of handwriting -- mobile app. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Huw, I'll give my two cents on this (primarily in hopes of prodding someone else to chime in). 1. Don't know, but my sense is that most of what is developed for children is not informed by anything but the simplest psychological theory. Most of the time the litmus test is whether or not it will keep the kid engaged for a few minutes so that the parent can run off and do XYZ. 2. I would suggest making it so that people pay by providing their data to be mined (you'll want to say it differently than that but you get the idea - also, note that there is a question of how you can be sure that you are tracking the right user - what if someone logs on as a user and then leaves the app open and someone else plays with it? okay, that's a little bit of cart before horse...). This might act as an incentive for do-gooder parents who are interested in contributing to research. 3. Can't help on this one. 4. I can't imagine why not. Also, I wouldn't worry about the hedging that you do at the beginning, I suspect it is unnecessary (even for this cynical bunch!). As a parent, I'm not sure that I would be terribly interested in a handwriting app. And I fear that I would probably subject it to the litmus test I mentioned above (will it keep my kids occupied for a spell?). Anyway, my two cents. -greg On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > Dear All > > I am writing a smart-phone / tablet application for practising handwriting > and related activities and have a few questions (below) which some of you > may have some feeling for. > > The initial audience I had in mind for the application are children of > adults owning ipads and the like. There are, I am aware, numerous issues > and scope for criticism with respect to promoting this kind of application > and pastime. However, given that there is a young user base for tablets, I > reason that we might as well embrace the technology and try to put forward > some good products, rather than the 'pop the balloon' games that, I > imagine, populate many of these mobile devices. I am currently at the > stage of implementing the main psychological component of the application, > which will initially be reminiscent of experiments undertaken by Gal'perin. > > What I am hoping for is to gather a large set of longitudinal > transcriptions of writing fluency across a potentially rather wide user > base (i.e anyone with a smart phone/tablet), in order to undertake a robust > microgenetic study of the development in handwriting and the analytical > skills that accompany it. It is my also my thought that this study will > serve as a good exemplary model for applying the genetic analysis that I > have been sketching out. > > Given the challenges of implementing the application, I have not spent much > time trying to find out what presently exists within the apps domain or, > indeed, whether the psychological research has begun to embrace such > devices for collating data. > > Here are my questions: > > 1. What's already out there in the mobile apps world? Are they informed > by any psychological theory? > > 2. Under what circumstances would you use or experiment with such an > application? E.g. Does it need to be freely available or would a small > cost be indicative of quality? > > 3. Are there any high profile studies of the psychology of handwriting > that you would want, or expect, the application design to be informed by? > Presently I am working along the lines delineated by Gal'perin, though I > hope to return soon to see what Luria has written about this too. > > 4. Is this the sort of experiment that merits publication in a particular > journal? It is my hope that I will get several papers published from this > effort as a whole. > > Best, > Huw > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson From huw.softdesigns@gmail.com Wed Sep 30 13:38:29 2015 From: huw.softdesigns@gmail.com (Huw Lloyd) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 21:38:29 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Psychology of handwriting -- mobile app. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for your response, Greg. My sense of question 1 is rather similar to yours. The only tablet we have at home here is for my work purposes (to install and test this app on, when I'm finished building it). Mind you, we are probably outside the norm here as we don't have a tv either, but we do use laptops occasionally for short programmes during the twilight zone. With our own young kids, their attention is often a function of what we endorse or reinforce in a positive, often collaborative, way. For instance, I have seen our 4 year old go off and write out numbers etc on a little white board he has floating about amongst his rammle. I perhaps differ with you on the 'something to keep them occupied for a spell' -- ours is usually looking for something he can do for at least an hour or so, but I get the point. Perhaps a useful distinction in this arena is parents that are not really concerned about the particular kinds of apps their (young?) kids play with vs those that are more judgemental, e.g. they would like to see their kids doing some, ostensibly, thought-provoking things with them. It looks like I have a leaning to wards the latter. I'm certainly that way with children's books. A book about ballroom dancing dinosaurs is not one that I yield to in a read-this-book stand-off. And a book about the tweenies received similar mock disgust. I (we) very much believe that children's books/media that engage the adults too have considerable benefits. Your Q2 response is similar to my own thinking. Conditionally freely available also keeps the open source route viable. With respect to Gal'perin's modes of learning (e.g. Gal'perin, 1982), I was thinking about implementing only the 3rd mode/strategy of presentation (analytic discovery of segments making up a grapheme), but I think I may well go for all three modes, as the third mode is probably the most complex programmatically. Best, Huw Galperin, P. Ya (1982) Intellectual capabilities among older preschool children: On the problem of training and mental development. In WW Hartup (Ed.), Review of child development research (Vol. 6). Chicago: University of Chicago Press On 29 September 2015 at 21:24, Greg Thompson wrote: > Huw, > I'll give my two cents on this (primarily in hopes of prodding someone else > to chime in). > 1. Don't know, but my sense is that most of what is developed for children > is not informed by anything but the simplest psychological theory. Most of > the time the litmus test is whether or not it will keep the kid engaged for > a few minutes so that the parent can run off and do XYZ. > 2. I would suggest making it so that people pay by providing their data to > be mined (you'll want to say it differently than that but you get the idea > - also, note that there is a question of how you can be sure that you are > tracking the right user - what if someone logs on as a user and then leaves > the app open and someone else plays with it? okay, that's a little bit of > cart before horse...). This might act as an incentive for do-gooder parents > who are interested in contributing to research. > 3. Can't help on this one. > 4. I can't imagine why not. > > Also, I wouldn't worry about the hedging that you do at the beginning, I > suspect it is unnecessary (even for this cynical bunch!). > > As a parent, I'm not sure that I would be terribly interested in a > handwriting app. And I fear that I would probably subject it to the litmus > test I mentioned above (will it keep my kids occupied for a spell?). > > Anyway, my two cents. > -greg > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Huw Lloyd > wrote: > > > Dear All > > > > I am writing a smart-phone / tablet application for practising > handwriting > > and related activities and have a few questions (below) which some of you > > may have some feeling for. > > > > The initial audience I had in mind for the application are children of > > adults owning ipads and the like. There are, I am aware, numerous issues > > and scope for criticism with respect to promoting this kind of > application > > and pastime. However, given that there is a young user base for > tablets, I > > reason that we might as well embrace the technology and try to put > forward > > some good products, rather than the 'pop the balloon' games that, I > > imagine, populate many of these mobile devices. I am currently at the > > stage of implementing the main psychological component of the > application, > > which will initially be reminiscent of experiments undertaken by > Gal'perin. > > > > What I am hoping for is to gather a large set of longitudinal > > transcriptions of writing fluency across a potentially rather wide user > > base (i.e anyone with a smart phone/tablet), in order to undertake a > robust > > microgenetic study of the development in handwriting and the analytical > > skills that accompany it. It is my also my thought that this study will > > serve as a good exemplary model for applying the genetic analysis that I > > have been sketching out. > > > > Given the challenges of implementing the application, I have not spent > much > > time trying to find out what presently exists within the apps domain or, > > indeed, whether the psychological research has begun to embrace such > > devices for collating data. > > > > Here are my questions: > > > > 1. What's already out there in the mobile apps world? Are they informed > > by any psychological theory? > > > > 2. Under what circumstances would you use or experiment with such an > > application? E.g. Does it need to be freely available or would a small > > cost be indicative of quality? > > > > 3. Are there any high profile studies of the psychology of handwriting > > that you would want, or expect, the application design to be informed by? > > Presently I am working along the lines delineated by Gal'perin, though I > > hope to return soon to see what Luria has written about this too. > > > > 4. Is this the sort of experiment that merits publication in a > particular > > journal? It is my hope that I will get several papers published from > this > > effort as a whole. > > > > Best, > > Huw > > > > > > -- > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Anthropology > 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower > Brigham Young University > Provo, UT 84602 > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson >