[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Peter Smagorinsky on concepts
On 17 January 2012 11:58, Andy Blunden <email@example.com> wrote:
> Huw Lloyd wrote:
>> I can't agree, Huw. To do justice to explaining a scientific or any
>> actual (developed) concept would always require holding that concept
>> in mind for a protracted period of time.
>> Did you mean to say that, Andy? Hold a concept?
>> What is it that does the holding? I would call this the thinking process.
> It's just an expression, Huw. It means that that same cloud can go on
> raining for a long time, generating word meanings and other actions one
> after another.
> Seems fine to me, apart from 'book knowledge' which needs more pinning
> By "book knowledge" I mean conceptual content which orignates entirely
> independent of personal experience, received through social means via
> culturally produced artefacts. So we are talking here about an
> ideal-typical process of development which begins from a book, or from
> formal instruction, and in no way relies on personal experience.
That's another point of disagreement. It seems as plain as day to me that
personal experience participates from the outset.
Bye for now,
xmca mailing list