[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Play and the Owl of Minerva



I forgot one detail. Each division question had only 3 as a divisor
Larry

----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca>
Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 8:06 pm
Subject: Re: [xmca] Play and the Owl of Minerva
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>

> Martin
> I agree with your analysis that play is  an essential part 
> of the lives of all of us. Society constrains our playful 
> activity by imposing abstract rules and frames our imagination 
> into serious cultural pursuits as actors learn their place . 
> Mead points out games is the activity where we practice taking 
> these positions.  What I'm wondering about is if we can 
> create institutional structures where the rigid actor positions 
> are more flexible and novel and game like. 
>  
> An example from my work to explain this. The institution is a 
> school and I'm in a position to structure the frame for 
> activity. I was talking to 3 grade 6 girls. My position was 
> teacher and their position was student/learner. If we stayed 
> within this structure then it was familiar and predictable 
> (David's text) their  was no TENSION, no risk no novelty, 
> and predictable roles. (not playful)
> However, the girls took a risk and shared with each other that 
> they did not know their multiplication tables. They felt safe 
> enough to not focus on self presentation (Goffman) and risked
>  trusting their vulnerability with each other (within an 
> institutional frame which I helped structure)
> I explained that the reason they were struggling to learn their 
> times tables was because they were trying to learn all the facts 
> at once and the trick was to learn only the 3x tables before 
> moving onto the 4x tables (scaffolding) [I'm still operating 
> within traditional teacher/learner patterns]
> My next step was to ask each girl to learn and memorize just 3 
> facts (3x3 3x4 3x5 for girl A)  (3x5 3x6 3x7 for girl B) 
> (3x8 3x9 for girl C)  After each girl had mastered her 
> facts I introduced a novel activity.
> I wrote the same math division question on the board for each 
> girl to do. My explicit instructions were to ask if each girl 
> would be willing to learn from the other two when she got stuck 
> on a math fact. I then asked if each girl was also willing to be 
> a teacher when one of the other girls got stuck. This is Mead's 
> notion of play as EXCHANGING positions (like in peek a boo or 
> hide-and-seek)
> Martin, this is where I share your idea that  the division 
> between play and work is because. of institutional structures 
> and social representations and not developmental moving beyond play.
>  
> The result of my re-framing the possibility for flexible 
> position exchange was TRANSFORMATIVE. The process took on energy 
> and fluidity as the girls started tentatively asking each other 
> for help, then became more animated as they jumped into each 
> others thinking and learning and teaching in a FLUID PROCESS 
> where the position exchange was rapid playful,and 
> INTERSUBJECTIVE.  When this process was liberated I was 
> reminded of the students in the playworld article.
> I'm not sure what theories to draw on to explain what happened 
> but it sure made me wonder about the artificate-ticity of our 
> current arrangements of work and play.
> Larry
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
> Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 4:37 pmd no r
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Play and the Owl of Minerva
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> 
> > Some years ago Brian Vandenberg was writing about play not as 
> > something that only children do, but as an essential part of 
> the 
> > lives of all of us. I'm reconstructing a memory from long ago 
> > (but Google Scholar shows lots of his writing), but what I 
> > recall was his observation that adult society is a system of 
> > abstract rules and imaginary situations that we have all 
> > forgotten are imaginary and abstract. It often takes children, 
> > in fact , to enable us to recognize that 'the coin of the 
> realm" 
> > is not "really money," it is in fact merely a piece of metal. 
> > Adult play, of course, is less gratuitous difficulty and guile-
> > less deceit than it is mandatory toil and sly chicanery, and 
> > that's why we have forgotten how not to take it seriously, but 
> > as any card-carrying existentialist will tell you, it's all 
> just 
> > a game.
> > 
> > martin
> > 
> > On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:22 PM, David Kellogg wrote:
> > 
> > > Andy:
> > >  
> > > Carol modestly writes to me off line to point out the 
> > mysterious fact that when children are offered a way out of 
> > "childishness" (e.g. the opportunity to stop playing and 
> instead 
> > go and clean up their rooms or help Dad with the dishes or do 
> > homework) they not infrequently and sometimes even 
> > unceremoniously decline.
> > >  
> > > She also, even more usefully, points out that in ANY game, 
> the 
> > starting motivation is quite different, and even antithetical, 
> > to the motivation which has us continue. So for example if an 
> > expert backgammon player offers to teach you the game, you do 
> > not accept with the expectation that you will win, but winning 
> > is a possiblity which emerges as you continue to play.
> > >  
> > > So too with abstract rules and imaginary situations; that 
> is, 
> > with gratuitous difficulty and with guile-less deceit. Last 
> > night in my seminar we explored a large number of games 
> (chess, 
> > rock-paper-scissors, snakes and ladders, etc.) which not only 
> > BEGIN with some kind of war or struggle or epic journey 
> scenario 
> > but are STILL actually presented that way (by casting roles 
> and 
> > alternating turns and so on). 
> > >  
> > > One of my grads tried to find the point at which a story 
> > definitively passes over into a game, and I said it was a 
> little 
> > like trying to find the point where talk definitively passes 
> > over into talk. It is there, but we always find texts in talk, 
> > and talk in texts, no matter which side of the divide we may 
> > find ourselves on. 
> > >  
> > > Wittgenstein claimed that there is no overt over-arching and 
> > external trait between games (e.g. a common functional 
> "motive" 
> > or a "goal"). When we read Vygotsky's play lectures, we find 
> TWO 
> > common points: viz. gratuitous difficulty and guile-less 
> deceit, 
> > the abstract rule and the imaginary situation.
> > >  
> > > But one is always hidden when the other is abroad. After 
> all, 
> > Wittgenstein's argument was only that there is no CLEARLY 
> > VISIBLE over-arching trait. And Vygotsky's reply is that if 
> the 
> > essence of things were visible on the surface, as overt 
> motive, 
> > or aim, or goal, why then no scientific explanation would ever 
> > be required for anything. His explanation of play is not an 
> > empiricist-functionalist but a historical, genetically, 
> > deterministic one, and the owl of Minerva flies only at nightfall.
> > >  
> > > David Kellogg
> > > Seoul National University of Education  
> > >  
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- On Mon, 3/15/10, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> > > Subject: Re: [xmca] Dialects of Development- Sameroff
> > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > Date: Monday, March 15, 2010, 5:33 PM
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Way out of my depth in discussing play, but here is my take 
> > > on "what is the motivation for play?"
> > > 
> > > I don't think we can or want to ascribe a motivation for 
> > > participating in play *in general*. I.e., the question of 
> > > "why does a child play?" cannot sensibly be answered by the 
> > > child. But this still leaves the question of the motivation 
> > > for any particular play activity: what is it that is 
> > > motivating a child when they play?
> > > 
> > > It seems to me that every action a child takes can be 
> > > explicable in terms of its being part of a project, and the 
> > > "Why are you doing that?" question gets the same kind of 
> > > answer as it would for an adult at work.
> > > 
> > > A different kind of explanation is required for why a child 
> > > is drawn to participate in what is after all an "imaginary" 
> > > project, then gun does not fire bullets, the money is not 
> > > coin of the realm, etc. I think in answering the question at 
> > > that level we look at problems the child faces in being 
> > > exlcuded from the real world and their attempts to overcome 
> > > that. I don't know. But from the beginning a child it trying 
> > > to extricate themselves from the trap of childishness.
> > > 
> > > Andy
> > > 
> > > mike cole wrote:
> > >> Your helixes/helices seemed appropriate to the discussion, 
> Martin.> >> XXX-history is cultural-historical genesis. And, as 
> Steve 
> > suggested,>> the twisted rope of many strands may be at the 
> end 
> > of the rainbow of
> > >> promises.
> > >> 
> > >> I have been pondering David Ke's question about the
> > >> object/objective/motivation for play. It came together in 
> my 
> > thinking with
> > >> Yrjo's metaphor of being always "just over the horizon" and 
> > its dual
> > >> material and ideal nature, most recently mentioned by Wolf-
> > Michael. Might it
> > >> be the dream of being coordinated with a world entirely 
> > consistent with
> > >> one's own dreams? A world, extending, as Leslie White put 
> it, 
> > that extends
> > >> from infinity to infinity, in both directions?
> > >> 
> > >> probably not, just wondering.
> > >> mike
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Martin Packer 
> > <packer@duq.edu> wrote:
> > >> 
> > >>> Larry,
> > >>> 
> > >>> I didn't mean to detract from the discussion with my 
> playful 
> > helices. I
> > >>> haven't found time yet to read Sameroff's article, so I 
> > don't know if he is
> > >>> proposing that there is an antimony between nature and 
> > nurture in human
> > >>> development, or in our *conceptions* of development. I 
> took 
> > Mike to be
> > >>> suggesting, in his recent message, that when we pay 
> > attention to culture we
> > >>> can transcend that antimony, since culture is a 'second 
> > nature' that
> > >>> provides nurture, and since culture is the medium in which 
> > human brains and
> > >>> bodies grow, and since all nurture offered to the growing 
> > child is mediated
> > >>> by culture, and since culture has been transforming human 
> > nature throughout
> > >>> anthropogenesis through its selective evolutionary pressures.
> > >>> 
> > >>> Eric, yes, I should have added phylogenesis, not just 
> > biological evolution.
> > >>> What then is the "XX-genesis" term for history?
> > >>> 
> > >>> Martin
> > >>> 
> > >>> On Mar 14, 2010, at 9:55 PM, Larry Purss wrote:
> > >>> 
> > >>>> It seems the double or triple helix is a significant way 
> of 
> > trying to
> > >>> configure dynamic processes.  However, what the 
> > particular specific double
> > >>> helix referred to in the article is pointing to is a very 
> > specific tension
> > >>> BETWEEN two specific constructs "Nature" and 
> > "nurture".  The current debates
> > >>> raging about neuroscience on the one side and the tension 
> > with relational
> > >>> notions of development on the other hand (ie the
> > >>> self-other-object/representation triangle) suggest a 
> > dialectical tension
> > >>> which the article says may be INHERENT to 
> development.  
> > To me this is asking
> > >>> a question about how the mind constructs significant 
> social 
> > representations.>>>   What is specific about this 
> > particular double helix is the HISTORICAL
> > >>> salience of this SPECIFIC ANTIMONY through centuries of 
> > dialogue and theory.
> > >>> My question is "Is there significance to the extended 
> > duration of this
> > >>> specific antimony through centuries. Does this historical 
> > engagement with
> > >>> the specific notions of nature and nurture have relevance 
> > for CHAT
> > >>> discussions.  This is not to say other double or 
> triple 
> > helix models may not
> > >>> have more explanatory power but that is not the specific 
> > question asked in
> > >>> the article. The question being asked specifically is if 
> > this specific
> > >>> nature/nurture antinomy is inherent to the notion of 
> > development? Other
> > >>> double or triple helix's could be conceptualized within 
> the 
> > nature/nurture>>> antinomy but the question I believe is being 
> > asked is how relevant a
> > >>> dialectical (or alternatively dialogically) nature/nurture 
> > antinomy is to
> > >>> our primary (ontological??) notions of Development as a social
> > >>> representation.
> > >>>> When I read the article, it seemed to capture the tension 
> > we are
> > >>> exploring about the place of neuroscience in our theories 
> of 
> > development.>>> For some scholars one side or the other side 
> is 
> > in ascendence and
> > >>> historically one side or the other is in ascendence. What 
> > the article is
> > >>> asking is if we must "INTEGRATE" what is often seen as in 
> > opposition and
> > >>> realize nature/nurture is in a figure/ground type of 
> > relational pattern
> > >>> (like the ying/yang visual representation) and the 
> movement 
> > BETWEEN the two
> > >>> positions is basic to development.
> > >>>> Do others have thoughts on the specific question Arnie 
> has 
> > asked in his
> > >>> article about the historical dynamic of the nature/nurture 
> > antinomy in
> > >>> developmental theories as well as in ontological and 
> > cultural historical
> > >>> development. This question speaks to me about the possible 
> > relevance of
> > >>> Moscovici's theory of social representations.
> > >>>> One alternative answer is to generate other double or 
> > triple helix models
> > >>> which may become social representations over time as they 
> > are debated in a
> > >>> community of inquiry but the article as written is 
> pointing 
> > to a very
> > >>> salient social representation within our Western 
> tradition. 
> > Does that
> > >>> recognition of its historical roots change how we view 
> this 
> > particular>>> antinomy?
> > >>>> Larry
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> ----- Original Message -----
> > >>>> From: Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
> > >>>> Date: Sunday, March 14, 2010 4:59 pm
> > >>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Dialects of Development- Sameroff
> > >>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > >>>> 
> > >>>>> That's right, Steve, though I'm pretty sure I didn't see this
> > >>>>> title until after I made the diagram. And of course 
> > Lewontin is
> > >>>>> referring to different factors. And, also, of course, collagen
> > >>>>> actually does have a triple-helix structure, which 
> Francis Crick
> > >>>>> thought was more interesting than the double helix of 
> DNA, but
> > >>>>> which got very little attention.
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> Martin
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> On Mar 14, 2010, at 7:53 PM, Steve Gabosch wrote:
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>>> On the triple helix metaphor:  Richard Lewontin 
> used it
> > >>>>> in the title of his 1998/2000 collection of essays _The Triple
> > >>>>> Helix: Gene, Organism and Environment_.  His core theme
> > >>>>> regarding biological development is that solely 
> > considering the
> > >>>>> interaction between gene and organism makes for bad
> > >>>>> biology.   The environment has decisive 
> > influence as well.
> > >>>>>> - Steve
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> On Mar 14, 2010, at 10:20 AM, Martin Packer wrote:
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>> On Mar 14, 2010, at 1:04 PM, Larry Purss wrote:
> > >>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>> What do others think of the double helix (and/or the other
> > >>>>> visual images in the article). How central is the double helix
> > >>>>> (either as an "is Like" or "IS" objectification) to your 
> notions> >>>>> of the human sciences?
> > >>>>>>>> Larry
> > >>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>> ...and I am pretty sure I stole, I mean appropriated, this
> > >>>>> from someone; I've forgotten who...
> > >>>>>>> <PastedGraphic-2.pdf>
> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>>> 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
> > >> 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ---------
> > > 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
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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