[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Re: Kant and the Strange Situation
And it's being discussed worldwide;
<http://mx.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/090121/insolitas/eeuu_obama_investidura>
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/opinion/21dowd.html?_r=1>
<http://www.noticias.ma/error-juez-provoca_i62290_7.html>
<http://www.cadenaser.com/internacional/articulo/juez-indujo-obama-equivocar
se-ocasiones/serpro/20090121csrcsrint_8/Tes>
M
On 1/21/09 2:52 PM, "Worthen, Helena Harlow" <hworthen@illinois.edu> wrote:
> What I liked best about that moment was that Michelle, who undoubtedly knew
> the whole oath by heart herself, did not cut her eyes at Roberts when he blew
> it. Instead, she kept a straight face and kept her eyes on her husband. That's
> confidence!
>
> Helena
>
> Helena Worthen, Clinical Associate Professor
> Labor Education Program, School of Labor and Employment Relations, University
> of Illinois
> 504 E. Armory, Room 227
> Champaign, IL 61820
> Phone: 217-244-4095
> hworthen@illinois.edu
> www.ler.illinois.edu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of Martin Packer
> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 1:40 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: Kant and the Strange Situation
>
> Eric,
>
> In this case there was literally a script - it was a formulaic exchange with
> an official text. But there was no script that told the president-elect what
> to do when the chief justce screwed up his lines. And this is where there
> becomes something to explain. If the script had been followed smoothly we
> would not be talking about the details of the event. So what needs to be
> explained, described in detail, accounted for, is the breakdown in the
> scripting and the improvisatory efforts by the participants to repair it.
>
> Notice that the process that started before Steve's message but which he
> furthered, and which then was corrected by Matt (and the important point is
> not whether Steve got it right but that we can sensibly discuss whether
> Steve got it right) begins with our everyday understanding of what occurred,
> and then, by articulating the details of what *appeared* to take place,
> leads us to a *different* understanding, richer and deeper. Where at first
> Obama appeared to lose his place rather endearingly, at end (or at this
> point in our analysis) he appears to have been reluctant to follow Roberts
> in what he recognized to be an incorrect rendition of the official text.
> Rather than a bungler we have a man who knows his Constitution, who is able
> to stand his ground with the Chief Justice, and who has a sense of humor.
>
> The abyss of senseless gibberish beckons us all, but one does get the sense
> here that Obama is able to view himself as a subject. In his Phenomenology
> Hegel suggested that human consciousness progresses so that we eventually
> become conscious of the way our own consciousness has been shaped by our
> biography and by our own society we come to see society as an objective
> reality. Then we become conscious of the way society is itself a product of
> human activity. Finally we become aware of both ourselves and society as a
> manifestation of something grander, and know that individual consciousness
> is not self-sufficient or complete. Quite where Obama is along this kind of
> path of self-awareness and humility is probably not evident from such a
> brief exchange. But it is evident that he's got further than the outgoing
> president!
>
> Martin
>
> On 1/21/09 1:48 PM, "ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org" <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Martin:
>>
>> Yes, scripted interchanges are fabulous. The article does indeed utilize
>> information from specific interviews with subjects. However, in a script
>> what is the unit of analysis? Cognitive models do have their downfalls,
>> they can be seen as generic and impersonable. Perhaps unambiguous is the
>> incorrect word. As I stated prior I have attemted to post about this topic
>> with an essence of what I believe is a shortcoming of CHAT: that looking
>> the subject of human development there are universals. One universal would
>> be that at the point of achieving higher psychological functions a person
>> has the ability to view themselves as both subject and object. Are you
>> positing that it is not possible to provide a model of a scripted discourse
>> for generizable purposes to address this universal? Or perhaps I have
>> slipped again into the abyss of senseless gibberish. Thank you for your
>> time, I feel as if I am learning a great deal even if I appear to be
>> confusing myself.
>>
>> eric
>>
>>
>>
>> Martin Packer
>> <packer@duq.edu> To: "eXtended Mind,
>> Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>> Sent by: cc:
>> xmca-bounces@web Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: Kant
>> and the Strange Situation
>> er.ucsd.edu
>>
>>
>> 01/21/2009 12:28
>> PM
>> Please respond
>> to "eXtended
>> Mind, Culture,
>> Activity"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Eric,
>>
>> It seems to me that a cognitive model needs to satsfy two criteria. First
>> it
>> has to have what one might call face validity: the model has to resemble
>> the
>> phenomenon it is modeling. This model, in my view, doesn't do this. To pick
>> just one example, it presupposes that each of us is constantly asking
>> ourselves the question, Am I okay? That's not my experience, for sure.
>>
>> Second, a model has to function, it has to operate. A clockwork model of
>> the
>> solar system has to actually make its little planets turn. A computer model
>> has to actually go through its distinct steps. This model doesn't do this
>> either. For example, it starts with a loop. That's fine: computer programs
>> have continuous loops. But if they are to ever exit the loop they have to
>> continually test the state of some register of information. This model asks
>> a question, but there is no indication of how it comes up with an answer.
>> When I ask myself, Am I okay?, I presumably check with the state of my
>> body,
>> or the opinions of people like my doctor. An adequate model needs to
>> include
>> these elements too. This model leaves out all reference to 'external' data,
>> and so I can't agree with you that it provides an unambiguous explanation.
>> What we have in the text, as a result, is a continual appeal to *both* the
>> model *and* the person that it supposedly replaces. We're told that people
>> "use" the model.
>>
>> But more importantly, contrast this kind of 'explanation' though cognitive
>> modeling with the excellent account that Steve has just provided of the
>> exchange between Obama and Roberts. Steve starts with his overall "sense"
>> (understanding? empathy?) of what was going on (or going wrong) in their
>> exchange, then justifies this through an utterance-by-utterance
>> interpretation of their interaction that identifies the moments when each
>> of
>> the 'mechanics' of conversation occured: the interruptions, hesitations,
>> repairs, negotiations.
>>
>> Here we have an analysis of action that is possible only because the event
>> was video-recorded and so 'fixed' as an object which we can all examine and
>> discuss, even though none of us was present as a first-person observer. I
>> too, the first time through, thought that Obama had bungled the lines. But
>> the transformed temporality of a video - the fact that we can replay it,
>> even view it in slow motion - gives us the opportunity to understand it
>> *more correctly.* (At the same time we should bear in mind that most people
>> haven't had this opportunty and so the "bungling" interpretation may
>> linger.)
>>
>> Steve's analysis makes tacit use of, and appeals to, our common knowledge
>> of
>> the character of the event and the persons involved (chief justice [child
>> of
>> justice as Ageliki wonderfully put it]; president-elect) and the official
>> text of the exchange. He analyzes the problems that came up in the
>> interaction, the 'decisions' that each participant made along the way, and
>> moves to an attribution of causality ("the culprit") in the form of a
>> preposition misplaced by the chief justice. This enables him to make
>> grounded claims about the personality or character of the participants:
>> Obama's capacities as a leader, his self-awareness, composure, sense of
>> occasion and humor.
>>
>> To me, this kind of explanatory account has much more power than any kind
>> of
>> hypothetical mental model. It appeals to what is *visible* to any speaker
>> of
>> English. It builds its case upon public evidence, contestable at each step.
>> And it is an explanatory account of *action* - intelligent action in a
>> social setting.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> On 1/21/09 12:08 PM, "ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org" <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Martin:
>>>
>>> Although the article on health related decision making does lean in the
>>> positivist mode of object-subject dualism when discussing heuristic
>> problem
>>> solving I believe it is at least unambiguous in explaining problem
>> solving.
>>> Something the dialectic does not do, in fact the ambiguity of the
>> dialectic
>>> and the ethereal value leaves little explanatory powers. Perhaps the next
>>> great step that could occur in CHAT is for theorists to posit how the
>>> dialectic can be THE unit of analysis. Impossible? A question left to
>>> greater minds then myself. I agree people are not information processors
>>> but if one takes a look at heuristic affect in the process of decision
>>> making I believe the article steps beyond defining people as information
>>> processors and places them into the cultural milieu. Must admit I have
>>> never been a fan of flow charts but once again they have explanatory
>>> powers. I am left thinking how could the question of taking medication
>> or
>>> seeking medical care be approached via the functional method of double
>>> stimulation?
>>>
>>> eric
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Martin Packer
>>> <packer@duq.edu> To: "eXtended Mind,
>>> Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>> Sent by: cc:
>>> xmca-bounces@web Subject: Re: [xmca] Re:
>> Kant
>>> and the Strange Situation
>>> er.ucsd.edu
>>>
>>>
>>> 01/20/2009 08:50
>>> PM
>>> Please respond
>>> to "eXtended
>>> Mind, Culture,
>>> Activity"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Eric, this certainly is a perfect example of reducing a person to an
>>> information processor, which I assume is why you've pointed it out.
>> Notice
>>> that the microgenetic model doesn't even work as a heuristic device. At
>> the
>>> very start it posits a loop: the person will apparently sit all day
>> asking
>>> themselves, Am I okay? until the answer is No. Very realistic.
>>>
>>> Then the next decision is, Why no? (Why not okay?). There are three
>>> possible
>>> answers - I know, I don't know, and I am not sure. All lead to the same
>>> next
>>> step! A pointless question.
>>>
>>> This next step is to ask: What can I do to make me feel better? There are
>>> no
>>> less than twelve possible options that can be selected from here - and
>> not
>>> a
>>> single criterion is proposed upon which to make the choice! In the text
>> we
>>> learn that "past experience" makes a difference, but the model has no
>> place
>>> for that. So following this model apparently one randomly decides to make
>>> some tea (option 4) or go to the hospital (option 12). If the choice
>>> happens
>>> to work, the model returns to the first step, and the person once again
>>> sits
>>> all day asking themselves Am I okay?
>>>
>>> Lots of insight about personal health-care choices here!
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> p.s. Andy, I'm mulling over objects and objectivity... Been distracted
>>> reading about the debates in the 30s between Max Eastman and Sidney Hook
>>> over Marx and Hegel
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/20/09 2:08 PM, "ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org" <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello All:
>>>>
>>>> I have been enjoying this thread and at times have attempted a post but
>>>> then find myself unsatisfied with what I am trying to say. The
>> following
>>>> article I believe dovetails nicely into this topic.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/653/1415
>>>>
>>>> I particularly like the part about hemeneutics of decision making in
>>>> irreversible time.
>>>>
>>>> Hope people enjoy.
>>>>
>>>> eric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>> <ablunden@mira.n To: "eXtended Mind,
>>>> Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>> et> cc:
>>>> Sent by: Subject: Re: [xmca] Re:
>>> Kant
>>>> and the Strange Situation
>>>> xmca-bounces@web
>>>> er.ucsd.edu
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 01/19/2009 05:44
>>>> PM
>>>> Please respond
>>>> to ablunden;
>>>> Please respond
>>>> to "eXtended
>>>> Mind, Culture,
>>>> Activity"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Martin, surely we two (of the many) meanings of "objectify"
>>>> here.
>>>>
>>>> (1) In "objectifying action has its dangers, such as
>>>> treating it as the output of a decision-making system" you
>>>> are using the word in the meaning it took on I think in the
>>>> 1970s as "treating a subject as an object" following the
>>>> idea of Kant that one ought to treat all people as ends not
>>>> means.
>>>>
>>>> (2) In "action is fleeting it must be fixed in some manner,
>>>> and although objectifying action transforms it" you are
>>>> using the word in its Hegelian sense of making a thought
>>>> into a material thing for others, a meaning which carries no
>>>> implication of being unethical.
>>>>
>>>> But Derek uses the word in yet a third sense, i.e., of being
>>>> "objective" which inheres in the action of the recipient of
>>>> action not the actor, i.e., objectify means (3) to regard
>>>> the thing as something objective, independently of one's own
>>>> subjectivity.
>>>>
>>>> Isn't this so?
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>> Martin Packer wrote:
>>>>> Derek,
>>>>>
>>>>> This is indeed such a huge topic that I hesitate to take it up. But
>>>> equally
>>>>> important; so here goes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Techniques of objectifying are certainly part of any science, but
>> surely
>>>> not
>>>>> the whole story. And I don't see that objectifying people reduces them
>>> to
>>>>> biological phenomena, and their action to biological processes, any
>> more
>>>>> than objectifying biological entities reduces them to physical
>>> phenomena,
>>>>> and their processes to physical ones. Certainly objectifying action has
>>>> its
>>>>> dangers, such as treating it as the output of a decision-making system,
>>>> or
>>>>> as a collection of factual events which can described without
>>>>> interpretation. But Paul Ricoeur (below) has argued convincingly that
>>>> since
>>>>> action is fleeting it must be fixed in some manner, and although
>>>>> objectifying action transforms it, these transformations can serve
>>>> important
>>>>> functions. The analysis of conversational action took steps forward
>> when
>>>>> recording technology became widely available (without treating
>>>> conversation
>>>>> as a biological phenomenon.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not to say that figuring out an appropriate science of action
>> is
>>>>> easy. But surely it's easier to study action scientifically than it is
>>> to
>>>>> study a personal, private, inner mind to which by definition one can
>>> only
>>>>> have first-person access!
>>>>>
>>>>> Ricoeur, P. (1971). The model of the text: Meaningful action considered
>>>> as a
>>>>> text. Social Research, 38(3), 529-562.
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/17/09 6:09 PM, "Derek Melser" <derek.melser@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Martin, Steve:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a big issue. I have written a bit about it. Chapter 11 ('Our
>>>>>> knowledge of actions') in *The Act of Thinking* is about it. And so
>> are
>>>> the
>>>>>> last three paragraphs of the essay at
>>>>>> http://www.derekmelser.org/essays/essayverbal.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The primary interpersonal attitude is the side-by-side one, the
>>> attitude
>>>> of
>>>>>> fellow-participants in some shared activity. Our perception of others'
>>>>>> actions occurs under the aegis of this fellow-participant (or would-be
>>>>>> fellow-participant, empathic) attitude; it is the light in which we
>> see
>>>>>> actions. Now and then we defect into an objective (distancing,
>>> reifying,
>>>>>> alienating) attitude towards others. Rigorously maintained, this
>>>> objective
>>>>>> attitude reduces a person to a biological phenomenon. But biological
>>>>>> phenomena don't perform *actions*, they merely exhibit derivative
>>>> biological
>>>>>> phenomena.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Science is the rigorous maintenance of objective attitudes and
>>>> observation
>>>>>> methods. My paradigm examples of 'science' are the physical sciences:
>>>>>> chemistry, physics, biology... There are disciplined academic studies
>>
>>>> of
>>>>>> history, law, fine arts, literature, education in which the topic is
>>>>>> people's actions and in which objectivity and empathy alternate, in
>>>> roughly
>>>>>> equal measure. But these disciplined academic studies are not normally
>>>>>> thought of as sciences. The thing about sciences is that they stick
>>>>>> rigorously to objective methods. Why would you want to put psychology
>>>>>> alongside biology, rather than alongside, say, history or education?
>> Of
>>>>>> course, you could call any disciplined academic investigation a
>>>> 'science'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, it is impossible to write briefly on such a large topic
>> without
>>>>>> pontificating, so I'll stop here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Derek
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *http://www.derekmelser.org*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2009/1/16 Steve Gabosch <stevegabosch@me.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Derek, I have been wanting to ask you about your thoughts about how
>>>> aspects
>>>>>>> of human behavior that can only be comprehended through empathy are
>>>>>>> therefore inaccessible to science. Assuming, for the sake of
>>>> discussion,
>>>>>>> that you are right, that empathy is a necessary component of accurate
>>>>>>> observation and understanding, why does employing empathy exclude
>>> doing
>>>>>>> science? Marx said (something like) "nothing human is alien to me."
>>>> That
>>>>>>> attitude isn't "empathy," strictly speaking, but it is certainly on
>>> the
>>>> way.
>>>>>>> Not that it is an easy or automatic thing to do, but why do you seem
>>>> to
>>>>>>> feel that we **can't** learn how to use our powers of empathy in
>>> social
>>>>>>> science?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Steve
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 15, 2009, at 4:20 PM, Martin Packer wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Derek,
>>>>>>>> It depends of course on what one means by empathy. I've been arguing
>>>> for
>>>>>>>> years that all the social sciences draw implicitly on our human
>>>> capacity
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> *understanding* the actions of others (Einfühlung?), and that our
>>>>>>>> investigations can and should be interpretive, hermeneutic. Of
>> course
>>>> many
>>>>>>>> others have made similar points. To say that genuine science is not
>>>>>>>> interpretive would be in my mind simply a false claim.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/14/09 4:20 PM, "Derek Melser" <derek.melser@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, if
>>> mind/consciousness/thinking
>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> action, then, because our perception of others' actions always
>>>> requires
>>>>>>>>> empathy, and because empathy is not an acceptable observation
>> method
>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> sciences, there will never be a genuine science of
>>>>>>>>> mind/consciousness/thinking. But at least we'll no longer be
>>>> bamboozled
>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>> the mind/body problem...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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://home.mira.net/~andy/ +61 3 9380 9435
>>>> Skype andy.blunden
>>>> Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy Blunden:
>>>> http://www.marxists.org/admin/books/index.htm
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca