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

Re: [xmca] Re: Play and the Owl of Minerva



Martin
Thanks for helping  locate these themes on the centrality of  time as part of the hermeneutic discourse. 
"Projection" in all 3 phases is definitely a theme which offers significant insights when authors such as Ingrid Josephs  use it as a unit of analysis.
I don't think these insights have stopped the puzzlement, but it does help as a signpost to guide the journey to  ...?

Larry 

----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
Date: Sunday, March 21, 2010 3:41 pm
Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: Play and the Owl of Minerva
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>

> Larry,
> 
> This is what is called, in hermeneutic theory, the 
> characteristic of "projection." All understanding of an object, 
> event, or situation, and hence all interpretation (which is the 
> articulation of understanding) is its projection, in three 
> senses. First, in terms of a practical project. Second, as a 
> projectile has been thrown forward from the past into the 
> future. Third, it is projected onto a background (rather as a 
> film is 'projected' in a screen), so that what shows itself is 
> always in the terms (loosely speaking) that this background 
> makes possible.
> 
> I don't know whether this will rid you of puzzlement! But yes 
> it's better than crosswords.
> 
> Martin
>  
> On Mar 21, 2010, at 5:11 PM, Larry Purss wrote:
> 
> > Martin, Andy, Luiz
> > Thank you for your reflections on tnis topic which I have to 
> admit leaves me more puzzled than ever (but it is more 
> interesting than doing crossword puzzles. 
> > I wanted to add a few more thoughts from Ingrid Joseph's 
> notions on this topic and the dimension of TIME in self-development.
> > She points out that polyvalent symbolic networks are dynamic 
> and FUTURE oriented as social PERSPECTIVES and TIME are 
> dynamically interwoven.
> > The PRESENT as-IS functions as an intersection BETWEEN as-WAS 
> and future as-if-could-be states. STABILITY of meaning is 
> provided by the fact that that the past is projected into the 
> future, whereas CHANGE results from the TRANSFORMATION of the 
> past by the future as-if-could-be. Ingrid states, "possible 
> futures are nourished by the past, but at the same time the past 
> is changed by the ANTICIPATED future" (Crites 1986  as 
> quoted by Ingrid, 1998  p. 192) Through this DOUBLE 
> MOVEMENT in the present AS-IS, the present moves towards its 
> immediate future, and becomes a NEW PRESENT. and the process 
> begins again.
> > 
> > If the role of either past (as-was) or future (as-if-could be) 
> becomes DOMINANT in a one sided manner, sel-development becomes 
> blocked and movement becomes stuck (emotions also become stuck)
> > Food for continuing thought
> > 
> > Larry
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----, 
> > From: Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
> > Date: Sunday, March 21, 2010 11:51 am
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: Play and the Owl of Minerva
> > To: ablunden@mira.net, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" 
> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>> 
> >> Big topic, Andy, and I can't afford to get distracted from 
> >> trying to figure out LSV on concepts! But it has to be said 
> that 
> >> science is hermeneutic too. There is not a single science 
> that 
> >> is not concerned with understanding traces, signs, indices, 
> even 
> >> symbols. That's to say, science is all about "taking 
> something 
> >> *as* something" (as Heidegger put it) and so "saying 
> something 
> >> of something," (as Aristotle had it, in his On Interpretation).
> >> 
> >> Martin
> >> 
> >> On Mar 20, 2010, at 9:11 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
> >> 
> >>> A while ago I was obliged to deal with the work of Roy 
> >> Bhaskar. What Bhaskar does is insist on the ontology of 
> natural 
> >> science in every aspect of life, including for example, 
> literary 
> >> criticism and cultural anthropology. The editor makes a nice 
> >> point with an anecdote: he is at a seminar on J-P Sartre. A 
> >> student in the audience calls out "Do you really think that 
> >> someone called J-P Sartre existed?" Obivously an 
> inappropriate 
> >> application of relativism, which then opens the way for his 
> own 
> >> dogmatism.> 
> >>> I was drawn to the conclusion that it is dogmatism to insist 
> >> on one true ontology (here I mean ontology the general, 
> >> classical, not the Sartrean sense) for all activities at all 
> >> times. Natural science is an activity which by its very 
> nature 
> >> must assume that there is a natural world out there whose 
> >> properties and forms can be known. This is not true of any 
> >> activity where reality is in a significant degree formed by 
> and 
> >> interconnected with, human activity and in the case of the 
> >> natural sciences breaks down in certain circumstances at 
> certain 
> >> times.> 
> >>> So I don't accept that naturalistic ontology is a *myth* of 
> >> the natural sciences. It is an essential part of natural 
> >> science. But it is not universal. It is just as dogmatic to 
> >> insist on hermeneutic relativism in natural science as it is 
> to 
> >> insist on naturalistic realism in hermeneutics, etc.
> >>> 
> >>> Andy
> >>> 
> >>> Martin Packer wrote:
> >>>> Larry,
> >>>> Yes, it has for a long time been part of the myth of modern 
> >> science that it discloses things as they 'really are,' not as 
> >> they 'appear' to be. LSV falls into this way of speaking (or 
> at 
> >> least his translators do). The most powerful analyses of 
> >> science, philosophical, historical and sociological, in my 
> >> opinion, show that it is thoroughly enchanted. Science 
> involves 
> >> seeing (and thinking of) things 'as if.' So Kuhn explained 
> >> paradigms in terms of 'seeing as' - a duck or a rabbit. So 
> every 
> >> introduction I have seen of gravity in relativity theory uses 
> >> the image of space sagging like a rubber sheet around masses, 
> >> even though this image is inadequate once one gets deeper 
> into 
> >> the math. Seeing space 'as if' it were rubber is a necessary 
> >> step into this branch of science. Each science has/is its own 
> >> imaginary.>> Martin
> >>>> On Mar 20, 2010, at 10:20 AM, Larry Purss wrote:
> >>>>> Luiz
> >>>>> That was an interesting thread you sent on play and games 
> >> and the tension between the concepts.
> >>>>> It is a fascinating topic.
> >>>>> I want to bring into the conversation a fascinating 
> >> perspective on the place of the fictional and imaginary in 
> play 
> >> (and other activity).
> >>>>> First for some context.
> >>>>> I've always been curious about the antinomy often 
> reflected 
> >> in the tension between imagination/reality and the literature 
> on 
> >> modernity as the disenchantment of the world and the reaction 
> to 
> >> this privleging the as-IS reality over the as-IF 
> reality.  
> >> There is a counter literature on finding ways to re-enchant 
> the world.
> >>>>> Often science is seen as the villan who is responsible for 
> >> the loss of the as-IF reality, as children move beyond 
> playful 
> >> imagination into the real world.
> >>>>> Piaget's notions of animism as indicating immature thinking.
> >>>>> INGRID E. JOSEPHS takes a radically different perspective 
> on 
> >> the tension between the imaginary as-IF constructions and the 
> >> figure-ground type relation to as-IS reality.
> >>>>> She wrote an article in HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 1198, Volume 41, 
> >> pages 180-195  which explains very clearly this 
> alternative 
> >> interpretation of the as-IS and as-IF dialectic and how it 
> >> infuses meaning with e-motion and explains the process of 
> >> Vygotsky's internalization and Mead's I-ME dialectic.
> >>>>> Following is a quick summary of Ingrid's perspective on 
> the 
> >> imaginary in our devlopment.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Symbol formation implies a TRANSCENDENCE of the here-and-
> now 
> >> as-IS world by construction of the imaginary as-IF world. 
> >> Ingrid's standpoint is an extension of Hans Vaihinger's [1911-
> >> 1986] "philosophy of the "AS-IF" as his notion of 
> FICTIONALISM 
> >> as an independent version of PRAGMATISM. (as an aside Alfred 
> >> Adler said this book transformed his life).
> >>>>> Vaihinger believed as-If thinking was foundational for 
> >> scientific reasoning.
> >>>>> Ingrid makes a further distinction between static 
> >> nondevelopmental and dynamic/developmental accounts of as-
> >> IF.  "BEING as-if" is static, whereas "BEING-AS-IF-COULD-
> >> BE" is dynamic. She points out this is similar to 
> Bretherton's 
> >> distinction of AS-IF and WHAT-IF. In dynamic notions, the as-
> IF 
> >> is a step in the process of forward oriented preadaptation to 
> >> the next MOMENTARY context. Development is based on as-IF 
> types 
> >> of apperception as each person participates in their own 
> >> development. Rather than being MORE adaptive or BETTER 
> Ingrid's 
> >> position is that developmental transformations cannot be 
> >> prejudged before the act. Whether it is better or worse is an 
> >> evaluative question.
> >>>>> In summary imagination always begins in the known world of 
> >> present and past and then one's horizon of understanding is 
> >> stretched into the realm of the as-IF.. Ingrid points out 
> this 
> >> notion of as-IF is close to Cole's [1992, 1995] notions of 
> >> personal duration. Ingrid states, "In imagination, not only 
> do 
> >> present, past, and future become MUTUALLY RELATED (and 
> >> constructed), but both the person and world are transformed." p.184
> >>>>> Now to the more specific topic of SYMBOLIC PLAY that is 
> >> being explored on this thread. Piaget understood play as pure 
> >> assimilation that is necessary until developmentally the 
> child 
> >> can transcend this immature level of reality and with 
> >> development SUBORDINATE the as-IF reality by the rational 
> >> logical, and DECENTERED modes of entering reality.  The 
> as-
> >> If is not ascribed any PRODUCTIVE future oriented function in 
> >> development. In contrast the position Ingrid (and Cole, 
> >> Vygotsky, Mead,) are elaborating is that the AS-IF-COULD-BE 
> >> operates throughout the lifespan.
> >>>>> [Note] I'm emailing this section because my software 
> >> sometimes crashes
> >>>>> Larry
> >>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>> From: Wagner Luiz Schmit <mcfion@gmail.com>
> >>>>> Date: Thursday, March 18, 2010 8:11 pm
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: Play and the Owl of Minerva
> >>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> I even didn't had time to read all e-mails (lots and lots 
> >> of work to
> >>>>>> do), but games and development is exactly what i want to 
> >> study in my
> >>>>>> doctorship.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Do you heard about narratology David? this was used to 
> >> study and analisegames for a while, and them other thing 
> called 
> >> ludology emerged...
> >>>>>> Take a look at this article:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> LUDOLOGY MEETS NARRATOLOGY:
> >>>>>> Similitude and differences between (video)games and narrative.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> http://www.ludology.org/articles/ludology.htm
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> this is my two cents contribution to the discussion... 
> and 
> >> i'm very very
> >>>>>> interested too in this rational/irrational discussion 
> >> too... but i don't
> >>>>>> have much to contribute now... Only that William James 
> >> already was
> >>>>>> debating this =P (being a teacher of history of 
> Psychology 
> >> is very
> >>>>>> usefull)
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Wagner Luiz Schmit
> >>>>>> INESUL - Brazil
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Em Ter, 2010-03-16 às 18:13 -0700, David Kellogg escreveu:
> >>>>>>> Sorry, everybody!
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> I wrote:
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> 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. 
> >>>>>>> I meant to write "it's a little like trying to find the 
> >> point 
> >>>>>> where talk passes over into TEXT". Halliday remarks 
> >> somewhere that scientific linguistics didn't really start 
> until 
> >> the invention of the tape recorder. 
> >>>>>>> I was always puzzled by that remark until I realized 
> that 
> >>>>>> until the invention of the tape recorder, TEXT was 
> >> synonymous with writing and TALK was synonymous with speech, 
> and 
> >> only people like Bakhtin and Vygotsky knew that there was a 
> much 
> >> deeper, underlying difference having to do with pastness and 
> >> presentness, finalizeability and unfinalizedness. 
> >>>>>>> (When we look at Piaget's work on conservation it is 
> quite 
> >> a 
> >>>>>> while before we realize how dependent on VISUALS it is. 
> For 
> >> the child, sound is not conserved at all, and of course 
> neither 
> >> is time. It is only with the discovery of language that the 
> >> child can imagine the conservation of sound at all.)
> >>>>>>> I think that the distinction between text and discourse 
> is 
> >>>>>> really the fast moving line between stories and games 
> that 
> >> we want: the story is past and the game is present, the story 
> is 
> >> finalizedness and the game is unfinalized and inherently 
> >> unpredictable. So the story is a text, and the game is an 
> >> ongoing discourse.
> >>>>>>> I think, Andy, that in a game the problem is not autnomy 
> >> per 
> >>>>>> se. It's autonomy for a purpose, and purposes are almost 
> by 
> >> definition not only beyond the self but even beyond the 
> present 
> >> moment (and this is why Mike is so right to point out that 
> EVERY 
> >> act of culture or even private imagination has an implicit 
> >> notion of "the good life" in it). 
> >>>>>>> Similarly, I don't think Vygotsky ever prizes volition 
> for 
> >> its 
> >>>>>> own sake; it's always the freedom to produce and to 
> create 
> >> and to imagine "the good life" and to master the irrational 
> >> forces which deprive life of that meaning, including those 
> found 
> >> within the self. It is in that sense that, yes, life is a 
> game: 
> >> it is meaningful through and through and to the very end. 
> Not, I 
> >> think, what the existentialists had in mind!
> >>>>>>> David Kellogg
> >>>>>>> Seoul National University of Education
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>> 
> >> 
> <http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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> >     
> >> 
> <http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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
> >>>>>> 
> >> 
> <http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>> >      >>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>> 
> >> 
> <http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>> >      >>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>> 
> >> 
> <http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>> >      >>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________> 
> >>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>> 
> >> 
> <http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>> >      >>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________> 
> >>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>> 
> >> 
> <http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>> >      >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________> 
> >>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>> 
> >> 
> <http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>> any
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> 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