[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] activity (was concepts)
On 25 April 2011 15:10, <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:
> Thank you for the dialogue. I am having a difficult time understanding
> what you mean by a "system of action".
There's nothing wrong with not understanding it, unless it's a problem for
> It is not a part of CHAT and
> doesn't fit into what LSV was describing in T& S when he discusses the
> development of concepts.
If you say so, but consider this: if you don't know what I'm referring to
how do you know it's "not in there"?
> Perhaps if you gave me a background of how you
> use this in your daily practice I could understand.
I seem to have the habit of turning my interests into my work, so I'm not
quite sure where to start, and would likely entail quite a brain dump. Some
of the more interesting ones would takes pages to write. But this is all
common-sense, surely? Here are a few more examples:
When I say to my wife, "Would you like me to go to Tescos?", I use the
phrase "go to Tescos" to describe an action which consists of a particular
set of relations (relations that comprise a system). This act is done in
the context of maintaining our food supplies at home (another system).
Picture this: A man is in a small boat off an African shore. He pales
water to keep the boat afloat. He fishes to support his family (or keep his
house afloat, if he had a mortgage). His breathing , paling, fishing, etc.
are all actions in particular contexts (systems of relation) and his
capacity to act is constrained and afforded by the system "he is in".
You mentioned before about the qualitative differences of hydrogen, oxygen
and water. Well, how about considering the differences of man, boat, and
man-in-boat? Or man, calculator and man-using-calculator? Or man,
means-of-addition and man-using-the-means-of-addition?
> For me I utilize
> LSV's writing in my work with adolescents with sever mental health issues.
That sounds like rewarding and challenging work, Eric.
> From: Huw Lloyd <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
> Date: 04/21/2011 06:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [xmca] activity (was concepts)
> Sent by: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > On 21 April 2011 18:18, Huw Lloyd <email@example.com> wrote:
> >> On 21 April 2011 16:49, <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:
> >>> Huw:
> > Hi, Eric. I'm a bit fresher now, so I thought I'd give this a go.
> >> I can appreciate lurking behind the meanings of words. I can
> >>> the serpentine action of weaving inside and outside the interplay of
> >>> origins; however, I cannot support that which strips what is within A
> >>> reality. 6" of snow in april is what it is, right? So, if one were
> >>> take a word such as 'poverty' and wield it for the purposes of camera
> >>> media time is that a tool or a concept? Methinks a concept is neutral
> >>> and
> >>> only is what it is, such as 6" of snow in april. Thanks to Martin I
> >>> honed in a bit better on what LSV was musing about in chapter 7 when
> >>> discussing the merger of thinking and speech; being that word meaning
> >>> evolves and develops due to thinking not due to the physical act of
> >>> speaking the word. However, the quality of the word meaning in a dual
> >>> stimulation exercise provides a person with the seed of a concept:
> >>> in April can arouse one to thinking things strange and out of sorts
> >>> then when told it is in Minnesota, qualifies the answer.
> > If you're using quality as mentioned in your more recent post, then I'm
> > agreement here that it is the concept (or seed of the concept to be
> > subjectively discovered).
> >> Tool use is an
> >>> association that can provide a person with the chaining of one idea
> >>> another but it is merely a quantity. No?
> > No. A scientific concept is a system of relations, as is a quality.
> > Regarding use, my employment of a hammer is a system. As is my
> > of a concept. We could talk about a quantitative change to this system
> > action, increasing the mass of the hammer for instance, but the action
> > itself comprises a system.
> > The concept of mass refers to a system of relations. The measurement of
> > mass comprises a quantity.
> Measurement as in the product of measuring. Measuring is a system of
> > There is a nice bit in Bateson's "Mind and Nature" when he talks about
> > interaction between Form and Process that he stumbled across whilst out
> > doing field work of Iatmul culture (page 210 in my copy) where he
> > the interaction of systems of process (action) and systems of type
> > (qualities, concepts). This might help you to get your head around the
> > system of action and the system of a concept.
> >> Going back to the example of
> >>> poverty we can associate that with many other words but what is it
> >>> qualifies poverty?
> > If there is an agreed concept of poverty then it will be based on an
> > implied set of relations, this is the agreed qualification (e.g. income
> > than the cost of rent + food for a given area).
> >> I can think of many examples as I am sure others can
> >>> as well, however, if one is to wield the word of 'poverty' then one is
> >>> not
> >>> wielding a concept they are merely using it as a tool for there own
> >>> purposes.
> > Still fuzzy on your meaning for this bit. The word does not _need_ to
> > denote a systemic concept in this sense. Typically, noun phrases are
> > for this purpose, though someone can say a word without thinking its
> > meaning, or think up their own meaning, if that's your point?
> > I hope this helps for you, Eric.
> > Of course concept formations are only going to come about through
> > particular kinds of social interaction. So if this is all seems really
> > crazy, I'd wait till your fresh and then hang on with some
> > Huw
> xmca mailing list
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list