Hi Andy,
In the third action, developing an abstraction - Yryo's work uses a
generic model in dual stimulation. This draws upon his historical
development as argued in his research.
Is it not also possible to explore this third action as an
abstraction without that particular model structure, I ask because
I'm reading this section of Chapter 1 of Ilyenkov:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/abstract/abstra1d.htm
"The task of logic as a science grows out of the real needs of the
developing cognition of the phenomena of the surrounding world. The
question with which a thinking man turns to logic as a science is not
at all the question of how abstractions should be made in general, how
one can learn to abstract the general from the sensually given facts.
To do that, one need not at all ask the logicians’ advice, one merely
has to have a command of one’s native language and the ability to
concentrate one’s attention on the sensually given similarities and
differences.
The question with which one turns to logic and which can only be
answered by logic involves a much more complicated cognitive task: how
is one to work out an abstraction which would express the objective
essence of facts given in contemplation and notions? The manner in
which processing a mass of empirically obvious facts yields a
generalisation expressing the real nature of the object under study –
that is the actual problem, whose solution is identical with that of
the problem of the nature of concepts as distinct from abstract
general notions."
and it strikes me that dual stimulation might be upon notions from
'action 2' ...
Christine.
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
Taylor & Francis allows xmca only discuss one article per issue,
but I see no reason why we couldn't discuss this excerpt from
Engestrom's paper. It concerns "rising from the abstract to the
concrete," which we were recently discussing, but without resolution.
--------------------------
Ascending from the abstract to the concrete is achieved through
specific epistemic or learning actions. Together these actions
form an expansive cycle or spiral. An ideal-typical sequence of
epistemic actions in ascending from the abstract to the concrete
may be described as follows:
• The first action is that of questioning, criticizing, or
rejecting some aspects of the accepted practice and existing
wisdom. For the sake of simplicity, we will call this action
questioning.
• The second action is that of analyzing the situation.
Analysis involves mental, discursive or practical transformation
of the situation in order to find out origins and explanatory
mechanisms.
• The third action is that of modeling a new explanatory
relationship in some publicly observable and transmittable medium.
This means constructing an explicit, simplified model of the new
idea, a germ cell, that explains the problematic situation and
offers a perspective for resolving and transforming it.
• The fourth action is that of examining the model,
running, operating, and experimenting on it in order to fully
grasp its dynamics, potentials, and limitations.
• The fifth action is that of implementing the model,
concretizing it by means of practical applications, enrichments,
and conceptual extensions.
• The sixth and seventh actions are those of reflecting on
and evaluating the process and consolidating its outcomes into a
new stable form of practice.
--------------------
MCA 19(1) pp. 288-289.
Andy