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

Re: Fw: Re: [xmca] Double Stimulation?

Just on the question of Luria, Mike. I am not all that familiar with Luria's distinct contribution, for which I have only myself plus having only one lifetime to blame. But if he is famous for the use of the *idiographic* methodology, then as I see it that is indeed something which dates from Goethe, and I have never particularly highlighted that in my own work. The Urphaenomen is another aspect of Romantic Science. So these are different things, closely related and having the same roots. Maybe it is time for me to use the great Luria On-line Library you have created to educate myself about Luria.


mike cole wrote:
I fear this does not help me a whole lot, Andy.
Sorry I cannot grasp the method of Goethe properly. I guess Luria probably failed as well. Or maybe he succeeded and I have misunderstood him? Entirely possible.

I did not ask what what is at odds. I asked for what the empirical consequences of the the distinctions you are making are. I cannot follow the path to reforming all of the educational system of the USSR or Russia, which, so far as I know, neither Vygotsky nor anyone else associated with Activity Theory every accomplished. Nore have I ever seen claims that they have. (The Finns appear to have done well recently using an approach, the relationship to activity theory I have no knowledge of, but perhaps our Finnish colleagues do).

Here is what would help me, and I suspect others on XMCA. Take an already published piece of work that uses the expanded triangle Yrjo proposes in Learning by Expanding. Say, the work on cleaners in the early work. Tell us about the mistaken conclusions that arise because of misunderstandings that confusion of the triangle for "activity" (no modifiers) causes. Suggest how we might improve our understanding. Or tell us why that example works, but some other example (teachers in schools, nurses and doctors in a hospital, etc.) does not.

Or suggest an entirely different way of looking at matters so that when we go into classrooms, housing projects, work places, we can more effectively understand what is going on and be of more help to those with whom we work that publishing another article in MCA.

I guess I am asking that you rise to the concrete here, keeping the object of analysis constant.

My apologies if this seems unreasonable. Perhaps it is approaching senility, but
I am failing to track you.


Lost in the words here.

On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:

    Yes, in Yjro's (1986) words, it is a "root model". (The derivation
    of it is a beautiful piece of work, too, close to Hegel's early
    "System of Ethical Life". Deserves to remain in print).

    But modelling a complex process is not the same as the method of
    Goethe, Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky. As you know, Mike, in order to
    understand this approach, which Luria called Romantic Science, I
    had to go back to its origins c. 1787 when Goethe was doing his
    Journey in Italy, studying all the plant life, and its variation
    by altitude, latittude, nearness to the sea, etc., and in
    conversation with J G Herder, arrived a his conception of
    Urphaenomen. The Urphaenomen is not a model.

    It is an abstraction, true. And yes, the understanding of a
    complex process by the "romantic" method is indeed, the rising to
    the concrete, the logical-historical reconstruction of the whole
    process from this abstract germ.

    As I remarked (somewhere) I find Yrjo's work over the past couple
    of years, which focuses more on the germ cell than the triangle,
    closer to what I am trying to do. The germ cell is not a model either.

    What is at odds here is whether a real, complex situation (such as
    reforming the education system in a nation in Africa, rather than
    in the USSR or Finland) can be based on a conception which
    isolates a "system of activity", whilst dozens of different
     ethnic groups, NGOs, government(s), trade unions and so on, are
    all contesting the aims and benefits of "education." Every person
    in such a situation is committed to more than one project, and
    deploys concepts (institutionalised projects) frequently at odds
    with one another. What is needed is a process whose basic units
    are (1) units and not systems, and (2) processes of development,
    processes in which people are struggling to realise ideas,
    processes of formation. And we need the algebra through which such
    units interact with one another, rather than declaring any single
    such interaction to be an entire new "unit" - i.e. coupled systems.

    mike cole wrote:

        Isn't the trangle a "model, " Andy? A model of the root
        metaphor. Still an abstraction... waiting to see if it can
        rise to the concrete? Perhaps?

        Empirically speaking, what is at odds here? For whom?


xmca mailing list