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

[Xmca-l] Re: CHAT Discourse



If others agree, Andy, then it provides a context within which to make
judgments about the kind of enterprise CHAT has become, in its various
instantations, which are certainly multiple!

On the other hand, maybe I am just being dull, the problems have been
solved.
mike

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> I think Vygotsky spoke optimistically about resolving the crisis in
> Psychology because he was writing in the wake of the successful Russian
> Revolution. Alas it was not to be so. But as a Marxist he would know that
> without the resolution of the crisis of humanity there could be no
> resolution in the crisis of any of the special sciences. Which is all the
> more reason to tackle the disciplinary boundaries inhibiting the
> development of both psychology and social theory.
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>
>
> mike cole wrote:
>
>> ​Complicated discussion about CHAT and whether its a science or not.
>>
>> One thing to keep in mind, perhaps:  Vygotsky said he was seeking  to
>> resolve the crisis in psychology as he diagnosed it a century ago. In my
>> view, he did not resolve it. I made the argument at the end of Cultural
>> Psychology and can post a draft of the chapter here if it needs
>> rehearsing.
>> I believe, to the extent that it can be solved, it requires one to take
>> seriously the fusion of theory and practice. Seems like Vygotsky said
>> something along these same lines, too, about practice being the crucible
>> of
>> theory.
>>
>> The question of what can be learned from an analysis of projects such as
>> those present in Andy's collection seems an important one. I am biased. I
>> would hate to think that i learned nothing from the past 30+ years of
>> involvement in the 5th Dimension!
>>
>> mike
>>
>>  ​
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Greg Thompson <
>> greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> David,
>>> I'd note that in addition to Andy's introduction, there was a "spirited"
>>> contribution (or two or three...) that use empirical stuff to contribute
>>> to
>>> theory.
>>> -greg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 2:06 AM, David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Andy,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the link to the TOC of your edited volume, which perhaps
>>>> unintentionally illustrates my point that empirical studies using
>>>> CHAT/sociocultural theory generally aren't intended as contributions to
>>>> theory, per se; as you noted, the affordances for theorizing were
>>>> brought
>>>> out by you, rather than by the authors as part of their motive for
>>>> producing the empirical work.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've hung out with cognitive psychologists quite a bit, and there's a
>>>>
>>>>
>>> very
>>>
>>>
>>>> clear demarcation between applied studies which utilize cognitive theory
>>>> for applicative purposes and pure studies whose sole raison d'être is to
>>>> inform theory. Furthermore, it is a fairly rare occurrence for anyone to
>>>> attempt to address theory in any other way than through the lens of
>>>> empirical studies.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My own experience of this community includes appreciation of the tight
>>>> logic of their theorizing, and also of the inventiveness of researchers
>>>>
>>>>
>>> in
>>>
>>>
>>>> generating truly provocative data that they are then forced to contend.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> But
>>>
>>>
>>>> it also includes a sense of frustration with the absence of any critique
>>>>
>>>>
>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> or input to theory from outside of the little studies that, one after
>>>> another, niggle away at the theoretical infrastructure. Excluded, here,
>>>>
>>>>
>>> are
>>>
>>>
>>>> not only philosophical inputs to theory, but even broader methodological
>>>> constraints regarding the character of good theories. (My own grounding
>>>>
>>>>
>>> in
>>>
>>>
>>>> mathematical theorizing includes a deliciously salient sense of the
>>>> “elegance” that makes a theory truly admirable and worthy.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Somehow, it seems noteworthy that CHAT/sociocultural psychology—whatever
>>>> its virtues—isn’t organized like other branches of psychology (e.g.,
>>>> behavioral, cognitive, developmental) with respect to the role of
>>>>
>>>>
>>> empirical
>>>
>>>
>>>> data in theory construction. Andy, in your response to Jenna, you
>>>>
>>>>
>>> described
>>>
>>>
>>>> science as an objective practice that “is not dependant on what you and
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I,
>>>
>>>
>>>> writing here on xmca in 2014, says it is.” The question all this raises
>>>>
>>>>
>>> is
>>>
>>>
>>>> whether CHAT/sociocultural psychology actually qualifies as a scientific
>>>> practice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
>>>> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 7:59 PM
>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: CHAT Discourse
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David, in the recently published book, "Collaborative Projects. An
>>>> Interdisciplinary Study," authors were invited to submit studies with
>>>> empirical content (in the sense in which you are using the word) which
>>>> illustrated the use of the concept of "project" within CHAT.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://www.academia.edu/6756231/Collaborative_Projects._An_
>>> Interdisciplinary_Study
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As you can see from the Table of Contents, more than a dozen different
>>>> practical studies were contributed, and I am satisfied that the
>>>>
>>>>
>>> collection
>>>
>>>
>>>> functioned to illuminate the philosophical issues about the nature of
>>>> "an
>>>> activity," and its ue as a unit of analysis, even though they are only
>>>> explicitly addressed in the long Introduction.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ------------
>>>>
>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>
>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David H Kirshner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Mike,
>>>>>         Clearly, as in Katherine Neal's response, and in MCA,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> CHAT/sociocultural
>>>
>>>
>>>> theory informs empirical research.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What's less clear is that empirical research informs CHAT/sociocultural
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> theorizing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Not quite sure what to make of that.
>>>>>         David
>>>>>         -----Original Message-----
>>>>>         From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>         [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike
>>>>> cole
>>>>>         Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 11:15 AM
>>>>>         To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>         Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: CHAT Discourse
>>>>>         Your followup comment is closely related to the second part of
>>>>> your
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> initiating message, David. So i will respond in line.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Firstly, I think it would be helpful to distinguish between MCA and
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> xmca.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The idea behind xmca was to provide a discussion forum for articles
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> that
>>>
>>>
>>>> appear in MCA so that instead of authors having to wait 2+ years for
>>>> feedback on their ideas (which rarely comes, even then!), we could
>>>>
>>>>
>>> discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>> the published work and learn from it in a timely manner. By an large,
>>>>
>>>>
>>> that
>>>
>>>
>>>> effort has, in my opinion, failed. Thanks to the recent decision to have
>>>> the editors pick out articles for discussion which include the author(s)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> in
>>>
>>>
>>>> the discussion, this situation has been somewhat mitigated. But only
>>>> somewhat. xma discussions have all the characteristics of Vygotskian
>>>> chaining, as a rule.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Secondly, when I take down a bundle of recent MCA issues and look at
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>> titles, they at least sound like they are about empirical matters
>>>> ranging
>>>> across a wide variety of content areas. Are you saying that these
>>>>
>>>>
>>> articles
>>>
>>>
>>>> are not really empirical? Or that they are not really helping us to
>>>>
>>>>
>>> develop
>>>
>>>
>>>> better methods to deal with perceived problems of social value? Again,
>>>>
>>>>
>>> this
>>>
>>>
>>>> raises the question of "MCA or xmca".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Lastly, perhaps it would be helpful if those of us who believe that
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> empirical work guided by CHAT ideas of some value has been produced in,
>>>> say, the past two decades, would post brief summiaries of that work with
>>>> references.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe its just all verbal sound and fury, signifying the usual!
>>>>>         mike
>>>>>         On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 8:50 AM, David H Kirshner <
>>>>> dkirsh@lsu.edu
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Does CHAT theory really advance with respect to empirical studies?
>>>>>>           If so, then why isn't the XMCA discussion a discussion about
>>>>>>           so-and-so's empirical results and how we should interpret
>>>>>> them?
>>>>>>           Various branches of psychology (e.g., cognitive and
>>>>>> developmental) do
>>>>>>           address concepts, and do conduct empirical research related
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> concepts.
>>>
>>>
>>>> It's true, they rarely enter into full-blooded discussion of what is
>>>>>>           a concept. But perhaps that's because they're scientists
>>>>>> rather than
>>>>>>           philosophers. They're operating within a framework that is
>>>>>> bounded
>>>>>>           primarily by empirical and methodological expectations and
>>>>>>           obligations; theory evolves within those boundaries.
>>>>>>           It's not clear to me that the Vygotskyan research community
>>>>>> ever
>>>>>>           operated in that fashion, and I'm wondering what would
>>>>>> happen if it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> did.
>>>
>>>
>>>> David
>>>>>>           -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>           From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
>>>>>>           xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
>>>>>>           Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 10:23 AM
>>>>>>           To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>           Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: CHAT Discourse
>>>>>>           Well, Lisa, I think that is a project which requires a lot
>>>>>> of what
>>>>>>           David would call "philosophical" discussion. :) The
>>>>>> Psychology of
>>>>>>           Concepts, as it is know to American psychology, i.e., the
>>>>>> "mainstream"
>>>>>>           do endless laboratory tests and questionnaires and surveys
>>>>>> and so far
>>>>>>           as I can see have still haven't figured out what a concept
>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>           Andy
>>>>>>           ------------------------------
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------
>>>>>>           -
>>>>>>           --
>>>>>>           *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>           http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>>>           Lisa Yamagata-Lynch wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well I am guilty for being fixated about thinking and talking about
>>>>>>>             methods and how to better understand how we can make a
>>>>>>> trustworthy
>>>>>>>             leap from understanding the world to understanding
>>>>>>> concepts. Again
>>>>>>>             just talking aloud.
>>>>>>>             Lisa Yamagata-Lynch, Associate Professor
>>>>>>>  Educational
>>>>>>>             Psychology and Counseling
>>>>>>>             http://www.lisayamagatalynch.net/
>>>>>>>    A532
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bailey
>>>
>>>
>>>> Education Complex
>>>>>>>             IT Online Program Coordinator
>>>>>>>   University
>>>>>>>             of Tennessee
>>>>>>>             http://itonline.utk.edu/
>>>>>>>             Knoxville, TN 37996
>>>>>>>             https://www.facebook.com/utkitonline
>>>>>>> Phone:
>>>>>>>             865-974-7712
>>>>>>>             On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Andy Blunden <
>>>>>>> ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>>>             <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>                 I guess because xmca is a discussion list, Lisa, and
>>>>>>> we all have
>>>>>>>                 our specific research interests.
>>>>>>>                 But when we publish, most of us have something to
>>>>>>> report.
>>>>>>>                 I have to plead guilty, I suppose, to spending more
>>>>>>> of my share
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>>     time arguing about concepts though. It is my special interest.
>>>>>>>                 Andy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>           -
>>>>>>           --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>>                 http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>>>>                 <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>                 Lisa Yamagata-Lynch wrote:
>>>>>>>                     Why is it that we came to what David stated as:
>>>>>>>                     Generally, we CHATters do not "collaborate and
>>>>>>> argue over
>>>>>>>                     facts." We are engaged in making endless
>>>>>>> theoretical
>>>>>>>                     elaborations, distinctions, and qualifications
>>>>>>> almost
>>>>>>>                     completely detached from empirical specifics.
>>>>>>>                     Lisa Yamagata-Lynch, Associate Professor
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Educational
>>>
>>>
>>>>         Psychology and Counseling
>>>>>>>                     http://www.lisayamagatalynch.net/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>  A532
>>>
>>>
>>>>         Bailey Education Complex
>>>>>>>                     IT Online Program Coordinator
>>>>>>>                     University of Tennessee
>>>>>>>                     http://itonline.utk.edu/
>>>>>>>                            Knoxville, TN 37996
>>>>>>>                     https://www.facebook.com/utkitonline
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Phone:
>>>
>>>
>>>>         865-974-7712 <tel:865-974-7712>
>>>>>>>                     On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:56 AM, David H
>>>>>>> Kirshner
>>>>>>>                     <dkirsh@lsu.edu <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu<mailto:
>>>>>>> dkirsh@lsu.edu
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> %
>>>
>>>
>>>> 20%3cmailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu>> <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>         <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>                         Andy,
>>>>>>>                         I don't think it's at all clear that CHAT is
>>>>>>> a scientific
>>>>>>>                     project,
>>>>>>>                         though it might initially have been
>>>>>>> conceived as such.
>>>>>>>                         Generally, we CHATters do not "collaborate
>>>>>>> and argue over
>>>>>>>                     facts."
>>>>>>>                         We are engaged in making endless theoretical
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> elaborations,
>>>
>>>
>>>>             distinctions, and qualifications almost completely
>>>>>>>                     detached from
>>>>>>>                         empirical specifics. And as your note has
>>>>>>> revealed, even
>>>>>>>                     at the
>>>>>>>                         level of theory, we're not all playing the
>>>>>>> same game.
>>>>>>>                         I agree with you that simply creating an
>>>>>>> obligation that
>>>>>>>                     claims be
>>>>>>>                         framed empirically does not imply we will
>>>>>>> "agree on the
>>>>>>>                         significance of that claim." But perhaps in
>>>>>>> an empirical
>>>>>>>                     setting
>>>>>>>                         theoretical issues surface as methodological
>>>>>>> issues. In
>>>>>>>                     this case,
>>>>>>>                         there is a possibility that disagreements
>>>>>>> lead to
>>>>>>>                     separation of
>>>>>>>                         research enterprises, with (greater)
>>>>>>> theoretical
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> agreement
>>>
>>>
>>>>         as a
>>>>>>>                         consequence.
>>>>>>>                         David
>>>>>>>                         -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>                         From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>>>                     <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>>>>                         <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:
>>>>>>> ablunden@mira.net>>]
>>>>>>>                         Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 9:24 AM
>>>>>>>                         To: David H Kirshner
>>>>>>>                         Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>>                         Subject: Re: CHAT Discourse
>>>>>>>                         David,
>>>>>>>                         CHAT is a scientific project. Insofar as it
>>>>>>> is science
>>>>>>>             it
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> must
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             strive to produce empirically verifiable claims which are
>>>>>>>                         meaningful irrespective of the conceptual
>>>>>>> frame into
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> which
>>>
>>>
>>>>         they
>>>>>>>                         are accepted. But as a project it is
>>>>>>> characterised by a
>>>>>>>                     system of
>>>>>>>                         concepts. People can agree on this or that
>>>>>>> hard
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> experimental
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>             finding, but still not agree on the significance of that
>>>>>>>                     claim. We
>>>>>>>                         CHATters talk to one another, collaborate
>>>>>>> and argue over
>>>>>>>                     facts;
>>>>>>>                         all of this is possible only to the extent
>>>>>>> that we share
>>>>>>>                     concepts.
>>>>>>>                         "Facts" are the lingua franca of science. As
>>>>>>> worthy a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> goal
>>>
>>>
>>>>         as it
>>>>>>>                         is to lay out some agreed facts, I think it
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>                     ill-conceived to
>>>>>>>                         think that this is a means of consolidating
>>>>>>> a current of
>>>>>>>                     research
>>>>>>>                         like CHAT. You can call it philosophical or
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> psychological,
>>>
>>>
>>>>         I don't
>>>>>>>                         think that makes any difference.
>>>>>>>                         Andy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>           -
>>>>>>           --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>>                         http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>>>>                     <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>                         <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>                         David H Kirshner wrote:
>>>>>>>                         > Following on Andy's discussion of artefact
>>>>>>> mediation,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> it
>>>
>>>
>>>>         seems
>>>>>>>                         inherently a problem of CHAT discourse to
>>>>>>> distinguishing
>>>>>>>                     efforts
>>>>>>>                         to elaborate Vygotsky's psychology more
>>>>>>> fully, from
>>>>>>>             efforts
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             solve the problems Vygotsky was addressing, de novo. In
>>>>>>>                     tandem, is
>>>>>>>                         ambiguity as to whether CHAT is a
>>>>>>> psychological or
>>>>>>>                     philosophical
>>>>>>>                         discourse.
>>>>>>>                         >
>>>>>>>                         > I wonder, in the spirit of psychology, if
>>>>>>> advancement
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>>         CHAT
>>>>>>>                         would not be better served by embedding
>>>>>>> theoretical
>>>>>>>                     discussion in
>>>>>>>                         analysis of empirical data. The point, here,
>>>>>>> would not be
>>>>>>>                     to make
>>>>>>>                         CHAT more directly relevant to domains of
>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>                     (though that
>>>>>>>                         would not be a bad thing). Rather, an
>>>>>>> empirical
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> obligation
>>>
>>>
>>>>         might
>>>>>>>                         transmute (some) questions of theory into
>>>>>>> questions of
>>>>>>>                         methodology. In that way, CHAT could become
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> differentiated
>>>
>>>
>>>>         into
>>>>>>>                         distinct psychological schools, each
>>>>>>> constrained by
>>>>>>>                     methodological
>>>>>>>                         strictures that also support a more
>>>>>>> homogeneous
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> theoretical
>>>
>>>
>>>>             environment. At the same time, a wide-open CHAT community
>>>>>>>                     could
>>>>>>>                         look across these various schools to pursue
>>>>>>> broader
>>>>>>>                     philosophical
>>>>>>>                         problematics.
>>>>>>>                         >
>>>>>>>                         > David
>>>>>>>                         >
>>>>>>>                         > -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>                         > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>                     <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>>                         <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>                     <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>>>>                         > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>                     <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>>                         <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>                     <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>] On
>>>>>>> Behalf Of Andy
>>>>>>>                     Blunden
>>>>>>>                         > Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 7:02 AM
>>>>>>>                         > To: Huw Lloyd
>>>>>>>                         > Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>>                         > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: mediate perception
>>>>>>> and direct
>>>>>>>                     perception
>>>>>>>                         >
>>>>>>>                         > Ah! I see!
>>>>>>>                         > As Hegel said: "There is nothing, nothing
>>>>>>> in heaven, or
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> in
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>             nature or in mind or anywhere else which does not equally
>>>>>>>                     contain
>>>>>>>                         both immediacy and mediation." I have no
>>>>>>> great problem
>>>>>>>                     with anyone
>>>>>>>                         saying that anything is mediated by anything
>>>>>>> else, where
>>>>>>>             it
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             appropriate. My problem is that the specific insight of
>>>>>>>                     Vygotsky,
>>>>>>>                         that artefact-mediation of actions provides
>>>>>>> an especially
>>>>>>>                         productive unit of analysis for science is
>>>>>>> lost if
>>>>>>>                     mediation in
>>>>>>>                         the broad sense is mixed up in CHAT
>>>>>>> literature with
>>>>>>>                         artefact-mediation to the point that
>>>>>>> artefact-mediation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> is
>>>
>>>
>>>>         lost.
>>>>>>>                         Still, I would prefer that if you were to
>>>>>>> make the point
>>>>>>>                     you were
>>>>>>>                         referring to you used some expression other
>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> "mediation."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>             >
>>>>>>>                         > Artefact mediation of actions is a
>>>>>>> brilliant insight. I
>>>>>>>                     can do
>>>>>>>                         what I like, but to do anything (other than
>>>>>>> have dreams
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> or
>>>
>>>
>>>>             thoughts) I have to use some material object to transmit
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> my
>>>
>>>
>>>>             actions, so to speak - a tool, a word, a gesture, or
>>>>>>>                     whatever -
>>>>>>>                         but all these artefacts which I use, without
>>>>>>> exception,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> are
>>>
>>>
>>>>             products of the history and culture into which I was
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> born.
>>>
>>>
>>>>         I can
>>>>>>>                         choose which artefact to use, but culture
>>>>>>> and history
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> produce
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>             them. So every action I take is essentially
>>>>>>>                     cultural-historical as
>>>>>>>                         well as personal. Also, because artefacts
>>>>>>> are material
>>>>>>>                     objects,
>>>>>>>                         their physical form is the same for
>>>>>>> everyone, it is
>>>>>>>                     universal. So
>>>>>>>                         communication as much as miscommunication
>>>>>>> takes place
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> through
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>             everyone interpreting the same material objects,
>>>>>>>                     artefacts, that I
>>>>>>>                         am using in my actions. How can they do
>>>>>>> that? Because
>>>>>>>             they
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> too
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             mediate their actions with the same set of universal
>>>>>>>                     artefacts! So
>>>>>>>                         all human action is opened to cultural and
>>>>>>> historical
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> analysis
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             which is as objective as any branch of natural science.
>>>>>>>                     Wonderful, eh?
>>>>>>>                         >
>>>>>>>                         > Andy
>>>>>>>                         >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>           -
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             > --
>>>>>>>                         > *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>>                         > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>>>>                     <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>                         <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>                         >
>>>>>>>                         >
>>>>>>>                         > Huw Lloyd wrote:
>>>>>>>                         >
>>>>>>>                         >> If you want to study how action changes
>>>>>>> then you need
>>>>>>>                     to study the
>>>>>>>                         >> history and production of the action.
>>>>>>> Under such
>>>>>>>                     circumstances,
>>>>>>>                         >> assertions that concepts cannot mediate
>>>>>>> (the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> production
>>>
>>>
>>>>         of) actions
>>>>>>>                         >> become more obviously false.  If one has
>>>>>>> simplified,
>>>>>>>                     through
>>>>>>>                         >> "clarity", the action away from its
>>>>>>> genetic base then
>>>>>>>                     it may seem
>>>>>>>                         >> correct to assert that a concept cannot
>>>>>>> mediate an
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> action.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>             >>
>>>>>>>                         >> The conservation tasks (e.g. conservation
>>>>>>> of volume)
>>>>>>>                     are an elegant
>>>>>>>                         >> way to demonstrate this.
>>>>>>>                         >>
>>>>>>>                         >> Best,
>>>>>>>                         >> Huw
>>>>>>>                         >>
>>>>>>>                         >>
>>>>>>>                         >>
>>>>>>>                         >>
>>>>>>>                         >> On 15 September 2014 04:26, Andy Blunden
>>>>>>>                     <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net<
>>>>>>> mailto:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ablunden@mira.net%20%3cmailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>             <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net%20%3cmailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>             >> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net%20%3cmailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>         <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net<mailto:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ablunden@mira.net%20%3cmailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>             >>
>>>>>>>                         >>     he, he, Huw!
>>>>>>>                         >>     For me, reduction, simplification and
>>>>>>> typology are
>>>>>>>                     the very
>>>>>>>                         >>     problems that need to be remedied by
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> clarification!
>>>
>>>
>>>>         and I
>>>>>>>                         really
>>>>>>>                         >>     don't think obfuscation is ever
>>>>>>> helpful, generally
>>>>>>>                     being
>>>>>>>                         used to
>>>>>>>                         >>     obscure the genesis of phenomena.
>>>>>>> Distinction is
>>>>>>>                     not equal to
>>>>>>>                         >>     separation.
>>>>>>>                         >>     I really don't know what you are
>>>>>>> referring to with
>>>>>>>                     product and
>>>>>>>                         >>     history. Perhaps you could explain?
>>>>>>>                         >>     Andy
>>>>>>>                         >>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>           -
>>>>>>           --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             >>     *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>>                         >>     http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>>>>                     <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>                         <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>                         >>     <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>                         >>
>>>>>>>                         >>
>>>>>>>                         >>     Huw Lloyd wrote:
>>>>>>>                         >>
>>>>>>>                         >>         I agree about precision, but not
>>>>>>> with a call
>>>>>>>                     for "clarity".
>>>>>>>                         >>         Reduction to clarity is a
>>>>>>> projection or
>>>>>>>                     reification of the
>>>>>>>                         >>         need for simplicity.  Simplicity
>>>>>>> usually
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> entails
>>>
>>>
>>>>             typologies or
>>>>>>>                         >>         other simplistic devices which
>>>>>>> prevent the
>>>>>>>                     conception and
>>>>>>>                         >>         perception of genetic relations.
>>>>>>> Actually in
>>>>>>>                     cases such as
>>>>>>>                         >>         these we are interested in
>>>>>>> (clarifying) the
>>>>>>>                     entanglements
>>>>>>>                         >>         between artefacts and mind.  I
>>>>>>> think It would
>>>>>>>                     be equally
>>>>>>>                         >>         appropriate and meaning-prompting
>>>>>>> to state
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> that
>>>
>>>
>>>> one
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             needs to
>>>>>>>                         >>         obfuscate (see darkly) too.
>>>>>>>                         >>
>>>>>>>                         >>         I think it is this "need for
>>>>>>> simplification"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> which
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>             leads me to
>>>>>>>                         >>         disagree with the 2nd paragraph.
>>>>>>> For example,
>>>>>>>                     why separate
>>>>>>>                         >>         the act from its production and
>>>>>>> history?
>>>>>>>                         >>         Of course, if one had the
>>>>>>> discipline to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> de-couple
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>             clarity from
>>>>>>>                         >>         modes of simplicity, then we
>>>>>>> wouldn't have the
>>>>>>>                     problem.
>>>>>>>                         >>
>>>>>>>                         >>         Best,
>>>>>>>                         >>         Huw
>>>>>>>                         >>
>>>>>>>                         >>         On 14 September 2014 07:02, Andy
>>>>>>> Blunden
>>>>>>>                         <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>>> <mailto:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ablunden@mira.net%20%3cmailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>         <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net<mailto:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ablunden@mira.net%20%3cmailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>             >>         <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>>>                     <mailto:ablunden@mira.net> <mailto:
>>>>>>> ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>>>                     <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>
>>>>>>>                         <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:
>>>>>>> ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net%20%3cmailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>         <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net<mailto:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ablunden@mira.net%20%3cmailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>             >>         <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>>>                     <mailto:ablunden@mira.net> <mailto:
>>>>>>> ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>>>                     <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>>>
>>>>>>>                         wrote:
>>>>>>>                         >>
>>>>>>>                         >>             My impression, Greg and David
>>>>>>> Ki, is that
>>>>>>>                     in the CHAT
>>>>>>>                         >>         tradition
>>>>>>>                         >>             specifically, as opposed to
>>>>>>> the English
>>>>>>>                     language in
>>>>>>>                         general,
>>>>>>>                         >>             mediation refers to
>>>>>>> *artefact-mediation*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of
>>>
>>>
>>>>             course, every
>>>>>>>                         >>         action
>>>>>>>                         >>             is both mediated and
>>>>>>> immediate, and in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> many
>>>
>>>
>>>>         discursive
>>>>>>>                         >>         contexts,
>>>>>>>                         >>             "mediation" is a concept
>>>>>>> which may be
>>>>>>>                     evoked quite
>>>>>>>                         >>         legitimately,
>>>>>>>                         >>             but with no special
>>>>>>> significant for the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> use
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>             CHAT. In social
>>>>>>>                         >>             theory, for example,
>>>>>>> mediation of
>>>>>>>                     activities by other
>>>>>>>                         >>         activities
>>>>>>>                         >>             or institutions is as
>>>>>>> ubiquitous as
>>>>>>>                     mediation of
>>>>>>>                         actions by
>>>>>>>                         >>             artefacts is in the domain of
>>>>>>> psychology.
>>>>>>>                     But if
>>>>>>>                         the topic is
>>>>>>>                         >>             psychology, I think
>>>>>>> artefact-mediation is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> so
>>>
>>>
>>>>             central, that I
>>>>>>>                         >>             prefer to spell it out and
>>>>>>> use the term
>>>>>>>                         >>         "artefact-mediated" rather
>>>>>>>                         >>             than the vague term
>>>>>>> "mediated".
>>>>>>>                         >>
>>>>>>>                         >>             I have come across usages
>>>>>>> like "mediated
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> by
>>>
>>>
>>>>             such-and-such a
>>>>>>>                         >>             concept." Like Alice in
>>>>>>> Wonderland one can
>>>>>>>                     use words to
>>>>>>>                         >>         mean what
>>>>>>>                         >>             you like, but I find a
>>>>>>> formulation like
>>>>>>>                     this in the
>>>>>>>                         context of
>>>>>>>                         >>             CHAT problematic, because it
>>>>>>> is using the
>>>>>>>                     idea of
>>>>>>>                         >>         "mediation" in
>>>>>>>                         >>             the most general sense in a
>>>>>>> way which
>>>>>>>                     obscures the
>>>>>>>                         fact that a
>>>>>>>                         >>             concept is not immediately
>>>>>>> present in any
>>>>>>>                     act of
>>>>>>>                         >>         communication or
>>>>>>>                         >>             any other act, and therefore
>>>>>>> *cannot
>>>>>>>                     mediate actions*.
>>>>>>>                         >>         Artefacts,
>>>>>>>                         >>             such as spoken words, which
>>>>>>> may be signs
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> for a
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>             concept, can of
>>>>>>>                         >>             course mediate an act of
>>>>>>> communication.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> But
>>>
>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             point is
>>>>>>>                         >>         that a
>>>>>>>                         >>             word is not universally and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> unproblematically
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             sign for
>>>>>>>                         >>         any one
>>>>>>>                         >>             concept. It means different
>>>>>>> things to
>>>>>>>                     different people.
>>>>>>>                         >>         Concepts
>>>>>>>                         >>             are not artefacts. Artefacts
>>>>>>> are universal
>>>>>>>                     in their
>>>>>>>                         >>         materiality,
>>>>>>>                         >>             but particular in their
>>>>>>> meaning. So when
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> we
>>>
>>>
>>>>         have a
>>>>>>>                         concept
>>>>>>>                         >>         in mind
>>>>>>>                         >>             when we use a word in
>>>>>>> communication, the
>>>>>>>                         communication is
>>>>>>>                         >>         mediated
>>>>>>>                         >>             by the word not the concept,
>>>>>>> and it is a
>>>>>>>                     mistake
>>>>>>>                         not to be
>>>>>>>                         >>         aware
>>>>>>>                         >>             of that.
>>>>>>>                         >>
>>>>>>>                         >>             So I would prefer it if
>>>>>>> "mediation" were
>>>>>>>                     always used in
>>>>>>>                         >>         qualified
>>>>>>>                         >>             way so that its specific
>>>>>>> meaning is made
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> clear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             >>
>>>>>>>                         >>             Andy
>>>>>>>                         >>             PS. And David Ki is
>>>>>>> completely right in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> his
>>>
>>>
>>>>             comment, too.
>>>>>>>                         >>
>>>>>>>                         >>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>           -
>>>>>>           --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             >>             *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>>                         >>             http://home.pacific.net.au/~
>>>>>>> andy/
>>>>>>>                     <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>                         <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>                         >>         <http://home.pacific.net.au/%
>>>>>>> 7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>                         >>             <http://home.pacific.net.au/%
>>>>>>> 7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>                         >>
>>>>>>>                         >>
>>>>>>>                         >>
>>>>>>>                         >>             Greg Thompson wrote:
>>>>>>>                         >>
>>>>>>>                         >>                 Does "mediation" only
>>>>>>> apply to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> language
>>>
>>>
>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             culture?
>>>>>>>                         >>
>>>>>>>                         >>                 Or does it include nerve
>>>>>>> fibers? (in
>>>>>>>                     which case we
>>>>>>>                         >>         would need
>>>>>>>                         >>                 to include
>>>>>>>                         >>                 reflexes)
>>>>>>>                         >>
>>>>>>>                         >>                 And does it include our
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> socio-contextual
>>>
>>>
>>>>             surround as in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>


-- 

Development and Evolution are both ... "processes of construction and re-
construction in which heterogeneous resources are contingently but more or
less reliably reassembled for each life cycle." [Oyama, Griffiths, and
Gray, 2001]