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

[Xmca-l] Re: Systems views [leontievactivity]

On 22 August 2013 11:56, Christine Schweighart <schweighartc@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Huw,Lubomir, Jack,
> Thanks for your replies.
> I find it difficult to scan the research of biologists' boundaries with
> psychologists in this area, biology research is funded to find results in
> areas such as diabetes etc and so goes in that direction; psychiatry seems
> to pick up from research from  pharma industry funded work - anyone with
> useful theoretical bridges please share them! At present the neuroscience
> field  has captivated attention, but  work such as that of G. S. Berns
> boundaries neuroscience with language and social context without
> consideration of enzyme/endocrine regulation.
> In Information Systems work discussion of phenomenological work has
> explored 'mood' as an aspect, but this hasn't any life-science ground to
> relate it to  Maturana's concept of autopoiesis, which has been
> influential. Also there has been some exploration of auto-affection
> (relating to 'collective subjectivity' not to phenomena of 'mood') -
> contrasting cultural settings - questioning action-research assumptions.
> What interests me is your comment, Huw,  about '
> Functional views as "a priori projections" is to use them a narrow
> non-genetic manner.'
> It's not a case of 'general systems heuristics';  when a practitioner is
> sensitive to personal sense, and begins conversations from already held
> meanings within intervention settings the 'general systems' are those
> brought to the conversation.  What is  'genetic manner' ?

To reveal significant morphological development that are explained by
the processes (e.g. of exchange) that are studied as part of the unit of
analysis, wherin the changing functions discerned (and analysed within this
morpological analysis) constrain (and afford) such development.

It's not clear to me at what point "system" enters into the descriptions
you provide, Christine.  e.g. are you looking at it as a social construct
(which, as such, does not need to be rigorous) or as a means to explain, in
which case it does.

> If Andy's
> suggestion that unit of analysis expands to produce 'system', systems
> approaches/methodology concepts have been developed over periods of decades
> through research efforts. Originator practitioners have a sense of process
> of development of  their concept meaning, and begin recreating milestone
> shifts of meaning towards articulation. In this way they have craft skill
> introducing and developing 'germ cell' thinking, not an 'a priori
> projection'  ( method).
> A little while ago discussing Lewin and  A-R, there was an observation that
> the action-research community were not trying to define 'method' , I was
> introduced to the idea that method is particular, developed 'in-situ' .

Yes, seems reasonable.

> What the notion of 'genetic manner' makes me curious about is whether dual
> stimulation   is more 'micro' than apprising 'given' meanings of  a nexus
> of conceptual relations ( a complex 'system'); in what way dual stimulation
> -as spontaneous creative actions -might contribute to a local history, and
> forming of a sense of 'germ cell' ( motive of enquiry); when we mention
> 'genetic method' ,whether we have confused dual stimulation with 'germ
> cell'.

Dual stimulation is an experimental paradigm.  For me it makes sense to
consider this at the level of action (in Leontyev's sense), because actions
are the means of organising activity, which is what dual stimulation is

Re local history, dual stimulation can be used to explore what subjects
remember etc.

If you want to think at an operational level, Luria's combined motor method
may be more appropriate.

Germ cell is the "abstract universal" which is the single basis that forms
the Russian dialectical materialist approach to a unit of analysis.

"Germ cell" has got nothing to do with real, biological cells.  It is
concerned with the phenomena of human activity rather than natural
phenomena per se.

> All rather too much for a thread, as I cannot participate much at the
> moment.

With plenty of room for cross-meanings, too.

Hope this helps,

> Christine.