Re: [xmca] Arne Raeithel's "genealogy"

My question about the map is what the links represent. After all, one
scientist or philosopher may accept the ideas or another, or react
against them, or modify them, or misunderstand them. Seems to me each
of these is a different link. Also, a family tree indicates two
parents for every progeny, where Arne's genealogy seemingly shows
spontaneous generation - one figure alone can produce another. And
wouldn't we want to have a way to map the milieus within which people
were working? Perhaps something along the lines of the social fields
that Bourdieu was fond of sketching, but with an added historical
dimension.

Martin

On Nov 4, 2009, at 1:44 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:

> To tell the truth Louise, there are a couple of names I don't know
> and half a dozen I know so little about I don't know why they're
> included ... or not. Two of the three "outcomes" are people who
> think humans are a type of computer, so I am not surpised that this
> genealogy is odd to me. But there is sooooo much out there. So much
> to read. :(
>
> Up till a few weeks ago I thought that starting with Descartes was
> not justified, but I take that back now. But somehow, Rene's
> nemesis, Aristotle, needs to be included as well.
>
> I don't know anything about Vico, but I find Locke, Berkeley and
> Leibniz to be rather peripheral to *our* story.
>
> Kant certainly deserves an important place, but I think his nemesis,
> Goethe, may be more important for us.
>
> Fichte is actually the inventor of Activity as a philosophical
> concept (I just learnt that Hegel asked to be buried next to Fichte;
> like Goethe, very under recognized in the Anglophone world).
>
> Hegel is the inventor of Cultural Psychology, so agreed there.
>
> I think Stirner and Mach are total diversions from our tradition.
> But maybe someone can explain to me their role.
>
> Wundt and Dilthey are important, though I don't know them well.
>
> Feuerbach is a bit of a footnote, but if you're going to have
> Feuerbach, you've gotta have Moses Hess, author of "Philosophy of
> the Deed", and inspiration for "Theses on Feuerbach". Of course if
> you think Frege, Russell and Turing are important to the genealogy
> of CHAT, then you wouldn't want Hess.
>
> MARX, obviously, in CAPS.
>
> And I would have lines from a whole bunch of people going to Dewey,
> as well as Peirce and Mead, but even though Peirce was the elder, I
> don't think you can give him such priority. Dewey surely was the
> leader. Arguable.
>
> And where are the Gestaltists? Again, not for computer cognition,
> but there needs to be lines between Goethe and Kant and then to von
> Ehrenfels, and on to Koehler and Co.
>
> Russian linguists like Potebnya, but I don't know where they came
> from.
>
> And these threads are all tied together with LS Vygotsky, yes?
>
> Freud has to be mentioned (I forget his sources), with arrows to
> Luria. And after Vygotsky and Luria you have ANL and thus to present
> day people,
>
> I guess, you can't leave out Piaget, and I don't know Piaget's
> sources.
>
> I know some people rate Merleau-Ponty, but if you're going to give
> Merleau-Pony a seat, you have to put in Lukacs and Horkheimer. I
> guess Habermas for discourse ethics, etc.
>
> I have no idea why Husserl and Heidegger get a mention. I my humble
> opinion, as clever as they might be, their impact on Activity Theory
> has only been negative.
>
> I have no idea why Bergson is mentioned: was he a source for Piaget?
> Don't know why Nietzsche is there. Interesting guy, but so are many
> others. Why von Uexhill?
>
> I agree that Wittgenstein rates a mention, though I don't know how
> much of a source he has been for us. He is some kind of version of
> Activity Theory.
>
> Frege, Russell and Turing are nothing to do with CHAT. What about
> anthropologists??
>
> Never heard of Maturana.
>
> That's my reaction,
>
> Andy
>
> Louise Hawkins wrote:
>> Andy,
>> I remember seeing this diagram a number of years ago, and I found
>> it useful as a big picture diagram to get my head around the
>> significant theorist.
>> Regards
>> Louise Hawkins
>> Lecturer - School of Management & Information Systems
>> Faculty Business & Informatics
>> Building 19/Room 3.38
>> Rockhampton Campus
>> CQUniversity
>> Ph: +617 4923 2768
>> Fax: +617 4930 9729
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net] Sent: Wednesday, 4
>> November 2009 01:05 PM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [xmca] Arne Raeithel's "genealogy"
>> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Theoretical%20connections.jpg
>> I never found this map very useful to be honest.
>> Andy
>> mike cole wrote:
>>> Have you found Arne Raeithel's "genealogy" of cultural-historical,
>>> activity theory thinkers from several years back. I am sure it is
>>> somewhere at lchc.ucsd.edu <http://lchc.ucsd.edu>. Perhaps you
>>> (and Andy, and.....) could update it with
>>> more detail. Hegel generated so much that has been "laundered" by
>>> subsequent "original" thinkers its totally amazing, and ditto Mead
>>> (whose writings i know far better, although very inadequately).
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
> Ilyenkov $20 ea
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Wed Nov 4 07:13:59 2009