It can be used by anyone with enough knowledge of the sources of the
equinamity to be selective in the appropriate way.
Mike
On Thursday, July 25, 2013, Andy Blunden wrote:
Well, I was hoping for a little more discussion about the
"combined motor method" and "method of dual stimulation" as
*models* and/or *units of analysis*, but those are my personal
topics of interest. Also of interest to me is that this guy,
Luria, the founder of modern neuropsychology did not investigate
the brain by poking electrodes into the gray matter or using
imaging machines, but directly by means available to the human
senses investigated action, the unity of thinking and behaviour,
by, as you say Mike, disrupting that unity, using again, methods
perfectly accessible to ordinary understanding and perception.
This is in line, for me, with his warning that "least of all does
he attempt to deduce the laws of hiugher activity from simple
neurodynamical processes." No, he had to intervene in behaviour
and observe the results. The idea of temporarily disrupting a
person's equanimity and control over their behaviour, so as to
cause them to unwittingly betray what is on their mind is
something which can be of use to anyone, even those without
expensive electronic equipment or even old brass instruments.
Andy
mike cole wrote:
I am away from home and this next week will not be a good time
for serious
responses.
I clearly have lots of views on inter-disciplines and history
of the
development of those we have. Its GREAT having Charles B back
in the
discussion after a long vacation and to great effect.
BUT
I think the Luria book is interesting and darned if most
xmca-ites did not
jump straight on the need for CHAT folks (at least!) to focus
on that
general issue and ignore the luria book and its key ideas!
Like DARN!
The combined motor method, subject to abuse like all of
science, is to me
a brilliant way to delve into the problem of knowing other
minds and it is
not irrelevant that Freud and Jung were up there on ARL's
reading list
a century ago.,.. and address in the book! It was
psychiatrists who were
central to getting it published (look at a copy). It has been
re-invented
many times during my professional career with zero recognition
of the
principle involved: the selective discoordination of voluntary
behavior.
The idea of functional barrier?
The treatment of quasi-motives and Lewin? (and were'nt we
interested in
Lewin once of twice within living memory "here""?).
Mike-gone-fishing
PS- For one example of a way to bring social sciences,
philosophy, history,
the anthropology, sociology, etc together check out the
curriculum at
communication.ucsd.edu <http://communication.ucsd.edu>. Now
who would of thought up something like
that?? :-)
science as practiced by not-only-Ed these days
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Larry Purss
<lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
Charles, Greg
Thank you for this emerging topic and theme of
interdisciplinary
possibilities.
Charles, has there been an *historical effect* of your
writing this article
on the journal *Psychiatry*.
The emergence of *family systems therapy* was strongly
influenced by the
William Alanson White institute [for example Salvador
Minuchin studied
there.
Psychoanalysis is also impacted through *interpersonal
psychiatry* in its
relational turn.
A central motif emerging within this tradition is the
understanding of
*anxiety* [as POSSIBLE or anticipated stress].
A central question becomes, "How do I [or we] make
ourselves safe?"
How central is this question concerning *anxiety* as a
factor that
motivates actions? I often ask this question when
exploring communicative
praxis or pragmatic understandings. Many of the examples
in the 12 issues
of the journal explored are exploring the possibility of
[or avoidance of]
perceived anxiety.
Fascinating topic.
Thanks,
Larry
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Charles Bazerman <
bazerman@education.ucsb.edu> wrote:
Thanks for the Group Processes reference. I will have
to wait until
after
travels this summer to get a hard copy, as the ecopy
seems to be locked
down.
Peirce, I agree makes an important move by recognizing
the importance of
interpretation, but despite looking at his works a
number of times on the
recommendation of people I trust, I find he does not
get us far enough.
This is what I have to say about him in my soon to be
released volume A
Theory of Literate Action.
best,
Chuck
Peirce's semiotics with interpretation
Charles Peirce, among the founding generation
of pragmatists,
looked most directly at language and semiotics, making
some first steps
towards articulating the implications of a pragmatist
view for language
and
language use. Most importantly, he recognized a major
role for the
interpreting speaker and interpreting hearer in the
meanings conveyed by
communication, rather than assuming meaning was
immanent in an abstracted
language system (Peirce, 1958). It is people who
attach meanings to
experienced worlds and issues of concern. This
recognition of the
importance of interpretive processes might lead to an
investigation of
how
differences in individuals and groups of individuals
might influence the