[Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science
Lplarry
lpscholar2@gmail.com
Wed Sep 2 09:09:53 PDT 2015
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" <ablunden@mira.net>
Sent: 2015-09-02 8:10 AM
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
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
>> <mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com> <mailto: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 <mailto:ablunden@mira.net> <mailto:
>> 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/> <
>> 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 <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu> <mailto: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 <mailto:martinl@azscience.org> <mailto:
>> 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 <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu> <mailto: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 <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com> <mailto:
>> lchcmike@gmail.com>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com
>> <mailto:sashacole510@gmail.com> <mailto: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 <mailto:nytdirect@nytimes.com> <mailto:
>> 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.]
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list