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

[xmca] Re: Luria - New Vodka Old Bottle PDF

And this is one of the principles of "Romantic Science." I'll dig up the quote from Goethe, but he was insistent, as I recall, that science needed to be opened up so that it could be practised by anyone without the use of either expensive equipment of elaborate mathematical apparatus, so that science could become an integral part of general social practice, rather than the esoteric knowledge of an elite (which is precisely what neuroscience has become!).

mike cole wrote:
It can be used by anyone with enough knowledge of the sources of the equinamity to be selective in the appropriate way.

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.


    mike cole wrote:

        I am away from home and this next week will not be a good time
        for serious

        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.


        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
        many times during my professional career with zero recognition
        of the
        principle involved: the selective discoordination of voluntary

        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""?).


        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
            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
            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.

            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
                travels this summer to get a hard copy, as the ecopy
                seems to be locked
                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.

                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
                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
                differences in individuals and groups of individuals
                might influence the

*Andy Blunden*
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts