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

[Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science



I don't entirely follow the last part of your note re my short piece
summarizing my take on romantic science, Larry. I had not made that
particular connection to Dewey, but it seems appropriate. Experiencing the
process one seeks to impose on others seems one important in the kind of
work I was doing.

Your suggestion about  the person involvement of the practice being
"contrasted with the notion of having a "reference POINT” as a place from
which to connect up with other "reference points/stances” I interpret as a
rephrasing of an attempt to put the idiographic and nomothetic in dialogue
with each other as a part of the process of research. I believe that is
what my take on Romantic Science seeks to do, with whatever degree of
success.

mike


On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:40 PM, <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mike,
>
> the second to last paragraph references “reflexivity” that results from
> “participating” within “designed” processes.
>
> returning to Dewey and his notion of “undergoing” an experience, there
> seems to be an analogy of reflecting from “within” the experiences as a
> participant.
>
> is this contrasted with the notion of having a "reference POINT” as a
> place from which to connect up with other "reference points/stances.”.
>
> in other words are “gestures” ways of connecting in a point to point
> procedure seen through the "eye/I” or can "gestures” be imagined more as
> "resonating immersive experiences” undergone through the "ear”.
>
> luria being both novelist and  scientist is gesturing towards the same
> question.
>
> larry
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from Windows Mail
>
>
>
>
>
> From: mike cole
> Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎September‎ ‎2‎, ‎2015 ‎6‎:‎10‎ ‎PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>
>
>
>
>
> I am unclear about what you think my belief in the matter, David. I view
> Romantic science as a way to achieve a goal Luria had from the beginning--
> the division between the nomothetic and idiographic. Particularly in the
> case of the man with the back of his head shot off, he was able to combine
> the two forms of science. People are so fixated on the fact that he wrote
> about the case so well that they forget he was trying to do generalizing
> science AND lived experience. Me too.
>
> Here is a recent brief essay I wrote about my current understandings of
> what I have been doing in this regard for some sort of publication of the
> National Academy of Education.
>
> Maybe its all confusion. But I find it satisfying.
> mike
>
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:20 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I think it's the eternal problem, Mike: how do we relate the instance to
> > the type? The usual solution is something like a division of labor:
> > clinical versus theoretical. If you are doing clinical work, you start
> with
> > the instance and if it doesn't relate to the type then we have to turn
> our
> > backs on the type and treat the instance  (e.g. when Sacks' cancer
> doesn't
> > relate to the generalization that eye cancers do not normally metastasize
> > to the liver). If you are a theoretician, like the gentleman urging us
> all
> > to "fuck nuance", then you turn your back on the instance and consider an
> > ideal type, or better yet, the system as a whole (e.g. when Durkheim said
> > that the particular reasons for killing yourself that we find in suicide
> > notes are utterly irrelevant and he approved when the British government
> > started to just bag and bin them).
> >
> > I don't think that either Luria or Vygotsky fits into either
> category.They
> > were both both theorizing clinicians and clinical theorists.  Even in his
> > case studies, Luria's interest was always in the "extreme type". And
> > Vygotsky, who certainly believed in the "experimentum crucis", had a
> > penchant for making the gendankenexperiment into a real experiment. Here
> > too, though, there is a limit. I think the study of language development
> > simply cannot use either the extreme type or the gedankexperiment,
> Language
> > is just too sensitive to human self consciousness. In no other science is
> > it permissible to fabricate data--do linguists get an exception just
> > because its so much easier and therefore more of a tradition? I think
> > not--and so I think that linguists like Langacker who don't use real data
> > will inevitably get left out of a truly structural-functional-genetic
> > approach.
> >
> > David Kellogg
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 8:14 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > I am having a lot of difficulty of relating the recent discussion to
> the
> > > work of either ARL or Oliver.
> > > mike
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 3:41 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I wasn't really critiquing the two-by-two matrix: actually, I think
> > that
> > > > such matrices are in fact composed of clines, although we tend not to
> > use
> > > > them that way. After thirty years of teaching, I find that I have
> > myself
> > > > have become an example person, and it's almost impossible for me to
> > grasp
> > > > "Romantic Science" as a concept or even as a diagramme without
> > examples;
> > > > being a linguist, the examples that come naturally to me are
> languages.
> > > >
> > > > There is a problem with my example that won't fit in the matrix,
> > though.
> > > > Let us consider a language as a bounded historical entity
> (Neanderthal,
> > > or
> > > > we can use English, but it will help if we take a point of view very
> > far
> > > in
> > > > the future, when English has become a dead language, preferably
> through
> > > the
> > > > wholesale extinction of our species, because otherwise we can say, as
> > > some
> > > > linguists do say, that no language ever really dies--it just changes
> > into
> > > > another language). The language system as a whole is essentially the
> > same
> > > > as the set of all utterances ever made or written in that language.
> > > Because
> > > > the language is dead, no other utterances are possible--nobody will
> say
> > > > them, and nobody can relate them to any context. In this situation,
> the
> > > > cline of instantiation and the cline of abstraction (which is really
> > the
> > > > cline of potential versus real) must join, and that means that lines
> > that
> > > > were supposedly perpendicular turn out to be parallel.
> > > >
> > > > I found the paper on nuance extremely puzzling, precisely because of
> > the
> > > > lack of examples, so I read it as an attack on conversation analysis.
> > > Then
> > > > it made perfect sense. But I found the references to "making love" in
> > the
> > > > description of peasant marriages rather curious, given the title of
> the
> > > > paper. So now the word "fuck" is used in academic discourse, to talk
> > > about
> > > > French peasants making love....it kind of leaves skidmarks on brain,
> > > > somehow.
> > > >
> > > > I once met a doctor in Sudan studying diarrhea. In the course of the
> > > > evening,he managed to make his study, and even its subject matter,
> > truly
> > > > fascinating; we could hardly wait till morning to see if we could
> find
> > > > samples of some of the things he was talking about. Similarly, one of
> > the
> > > > first linguistics papers I ever read, by my old professor James
> > McCawley
> > > at
> > > > University of Chicago, was all about why you can say
> > "fan-fucking-tastic"
> > > > and but you cannot say "fantas-fucking-tic"; I remember the paper
> well,
> > > and
> > > > later I used it to analyze a song from "My Fair Lady"
> > > > ("Abso-blooming-lutely still" in "Wouldn't it lov-er-ly?").
> > > >
> > > > I'm not arguing that we can or even should abolish the euphemism
> > > > treadmills; we can't. Paul recently sent around a call for papers for
> > > > something called "The Journal of Negro Education", and I did a double
> > > take
> > > > until I realized it was the journal of W.E.B. Dubois. This summer, I
> > > > learned that in South Africa "black" is perjorative, and "colored" is
> > > used
> > > > self-descriptively; in America (I think) it's the other way around.
> > But a
> > > > sociologist should probably be aware that the word "fuck" has
> actually
> > > NOT
> > > > lost all semantic content: if it had it would not be the staple of
> > > > rape-friendly discourses like pop music and hip-hop. Or is that just
> > > > nuance?
> > > >
> > > > David Kellogg
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Rafi Santo <rsanto@indiana.edu>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Pardon the tangent, but I couldn't help but posting this recent
> paper
> > > > that
> > > > > was presented last month at the ASA:
> > > > > http://kieranhealy.org/files/papers/fuck-nuance.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > Aside from having a catchy title, it's pretty relevant to this
> > > > discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Lplarry <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I hope I am not going off on a tangent. The concept "morphic"
> and
> > > the
> > > > > > notion that  the four approach's are equally valid but express
> > > > different
> > > > > > aspects of THE RELATION.
> > > > > > The notion of difference/relation as a unity and each difference
> is
> > > > > > equally valid but expressing a different "character" within the
> > > > relation
> > > > > > (as a unity)
> > > > > > Not abstracted or reduced aspects but "morphic" aspects?.
> > > > > > If this is too idio just ignore my question. It is coming from
> left
> > > > > field.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net>
> > > > > > Sent: ‎2015-‎09-‎02 8:10 AM
> > > > > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So this is a diagnostic tool, Peg?
> > > > > > Could you spell this out a little more for someone who still
> > > > > > doesn't grasp what you are talking about? :)
> > > > > > andy
> > > > > > intrigued.
> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > *Andy Blunden*
> > > > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> > > > > > On 3/09/2015 12:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote:
> > > > > > > What I did not make clear is that the JoHari window is not
> really
> > > the
> > > > > > same as a matrix.  It is a different kind of tool than I think
> > David
> > > > and
> > > > > > Peter are thinking about.
> > > > > > > Here's the trick: You change the pane sizes to emphasize the
> one
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > four panes you are currently acting on -- but all four panes are
> > > always
> > > > > > there.
> > > > > > > So you can make the "concrete specific" pane HUGE by moving the
> > top
> > > > > > bottom inner divider far to the right and moving the left right
> > inner
> > > > > > divider far to the bottom.   Or you can move only one of the
> > > dividers.
> > > > > > And you can move the dividers without such extremes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Even if a diagnosis/treatment only does the first move I
> > described,
> > > > > > there's little abstract involved.  I don't mind that so much if
> the
> > > > > actors
> > > > > > are involved in an emergency triage activity, but without the
> > > abstract
> > > > > you
> > > > > > are going on observables very influenced by perceptual and
> cultural
> > > > > access
> > > > > > of the actors and you might not even have the most useful
> template
> > > from
> > > > > the
> > > > > > general to guide/evaluate your trials and errors.  So you'd
> better
> > > > shift
> > > > > > the panes pretty soon before things get way off base.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You can also fool around with the arrangement of the terms that
> > > name
> > > > > the
> > > > > > panes:  Do you get more out of concrete vs. specific or more out
> of
> > > > > > specific vs. concrete (in David's terms the anchors for the
> cline).
> > > > Same
> > > > > > for abstract vs. concrete or concrete vs. abstract.
> > > > > > > PG
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > [mailto:
> > > > > > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf
> Of
> > > Peg
> > > > > > Griffin
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:55 PM
> > > > > > > To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
> > > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As far as I understand those terms (nomothetic and
> idiographic),
> > > the
> > > > > > combined motor method does unite them and so arrives at dual
> > > > stimulation,
> > > > > > given the non-accidental mosaic.
> > > > > > > But I don't know that my understanding goes far enough or too
> > far!
> > > > > > > Peg
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > [mailto:
> > > > > > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf
> Of
> > > mike
> > > > > > cole
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:08 PM
> > > > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is that simultaneously uniting the nomothetic and idiographic,
> > Peg?
> > > > > That
> > > > > > is the way Luria talked about it.
> > > > > > > mike
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Peg Griffin <
> > Peg.Griffin@att.net>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Just in a short-hand:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Concrete Specific:  Zasetsky (The man with the shattered
> world)
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Concrete General: People with traumatic brain injury during
> WWII
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Abstract General: Brain is a mosaic of specific domains with
> > > actions
> > > > > > >> that interact in dual stimulations (not pure will)
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Abstract Specific:  A man acts to recall using images; it
> fails
> > > on a
> > > > > > >> certain target.  The man starts appears to abandon the recall
> by
> > > > > > >> acting an intimately related system – e.g., reciting the
> > alphabet.
> > > > > > >> But the recital is “interrupted” when it bumps into the
> original
> > > > > > >> recall target and the recall is successful.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> For diagnosis and/or treatment, we must rise to the concrete
> > > > specific.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Sorry I don’t have time to develop this further but I am sure
> > many
> > > > on
> > > > > > >> this list do, and I know that Luria and Sacks did so in
> wondrous
> > > and
> > > > > > >> glorious instances.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Peg
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net]
> > > > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:21 AM
> > > > > > >> To: Peg Griffin; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
> > > > > > >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Could you give an example, Peg?
> > > > > > >> andy
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>    _____
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> *Andy Blunden*
> > > > > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> What has always helped me – and helps me appreciate Luria and
> > > Sachs
> > > > –
> > > > > > >> with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made
> > > > (based
> > > > > > >> on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and
> > Harrington
> > > > > > >> Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill in
> each
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > four cells in
> > > > > > >> the square about an issue of interest.   It helps me think
> about
> > > > > > >> genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too.
> > > > > > >>    Concrete       Abstract
> > > > > > >> Specific
> > > > > > >> General
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> A romantic square,
> > > > > > >> Peg
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > > [mailto:
> > > > > > >> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf
> > Of
> > > > Rod
> > > > > > >> Parker-Rees
> > > > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM
> > > > > > >> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Thanks for posting this, Andy.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of
> his
> > > > > > >> reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his
> > > observation
> > > > > > >> that 'The eye of science does not probe “a thing,” an event
> > > isolated
> > > > > > >> from other things or events. Its real object is to see and
> > > > understand
> > > > > > >> the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more
> or
> > > > less)
> > > > > > >> on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but
> > our
> > > > > > >> communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using
> > > these
> > > > > > >> categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of
> > > > science
> > > > > > >> but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use
> of
> > > > > > >> language and more routine, formulaic forms of communication.
> The
> > > > > > >> romantic focus on an 'individual' can only ever be conducted
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > >> medium of a very un-individual language and no person's life
> > could
> > > > > > >> possibly be understood without reference to relationships with
> > > other
> > > > > > >> persons which then spread roots and branches out to a forest
> of
> > > > > > connections, causes and consequences.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of
> > > theory
> > > > if
> > > > > > >> one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case
> > and
> > > > > > >> Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the
> > > > > > >> concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go,
> but
> > > the
> > > > > > >> creative sources of great historical events and the important
> > > ideas
> > > > > > >> and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the
> > > > contribution
> > > > > > >> individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than
> > > > themselves
> > > > > > >> but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want neither
> to
> > > > split
> > > > > > >> living reality into its elementary components nor to represent
> > the
> > > > > > >> wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that lose
> > the
> > > > > > properties of the phenomena themselves'.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is
> > > > > > >> particularly interesting because it may reveal something about
> > how
> > > > all
> > > > > > >> minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been
> > 'set'
> > > > > > >> lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory
> > > > > > >> associations which words bring with them in a way which, for
> > most
> > > of
> > > > > > >> us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a
> > > > > > >> particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that
> > every
> > > > > > >> person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures,
> > > > > > >> behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface
> > of a
> > > > > > >> pool of connections and associations which can never be shared
> > > with
> > > > or
> > > > > > >> known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we
> can
> > > only
> > > > > > >> go so far in understanding another person's understanding and
> > much
> > > > > > >> less far in communicating that to other people (knowing
> someone
> > > is a
> > > > > > >> very different thing from being able to share that knowledge
> in
> > a
> > > > > > >> rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of
> > the
> > > > > > >> spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their
> knowledge
> > is
> > > > > > >> entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that
> > > swirl
> > > > > > beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories!
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in
> > what
> > > > lies
> > > > > > >> beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young
> > > children
> > > > > > >> are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so
> > > > powerfully
> > > > > > >> dominated by abstractions.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> All the best,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Rod
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=
> > > > plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > > > > > >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=
> > > > > plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > > > > > >> ]
> > > > > > >> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> > > > > > >> Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17
> > > > > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Try this, in Word this time.
> > > > > > >> Andy
> > > > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > >> *Andy Blunden*
> > > > > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> > > > > > >> On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> ​It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post
> > the
> > > > > > >> chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which
> > MUST
> > > be
> > > > > > >> somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> After reading what the person said, then discussion of the
> ideas
> > > > seems
> > > > > > >> appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended
> > > > essay's
> > > > > > >> on his view of Romantic Science.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they
> were,
> > > > were
> > > > > > >> not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of
> > > their
> > > > > > >> enterprise encompassed those fields and more.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual
> > > case
> > > > in
> > > > > > >> no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their
> > > work.
> > > > > > >> Nor does Luria argue so.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> mike
> > > > > > >> ​
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg <
> > > > dkellogg60@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> <mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com> <mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com>>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>      I think the problem with this view of romantic science
> > > > > > >>      is that it
> > > > > > >>      completely precludes building a psychology on a
> > > > > > >>      sociology. In that sense
> > > > > > >>      (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist
> > > > > > >>      at all. Vygotsky
> > > > > > >>      certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the
> > > > > > >>      individual case"; such
> > > > > > >>      an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of
> > > > > > >>      theory. I'm not sure
> > > > > > >>      Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a
> > > > > > >>      Shattered Mind" and
> > > > > > >>      "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions.
> > > > > > >>      Remember the main
> > > > > > >>      criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human
> > > > > > >>      Conflicts" was always that
> > > > > > >>      it was too quantitative.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>      There are, of course, some areas of psychology that
> > > > > > >>      are well studied as
> > > > > > >>      case histories. Recently, I've been looking into
> > > > > > >>      suicidology, and in
> > > > > > >>      particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered
> > > > > > >>      the linguistic
> > > > > > >>      analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have
> > > > > > >>      been influenced, as
> > > > > > >>      early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work
> > > > > > >>      on schizophrinia).
> > > > > > >>      Now you would think that if ever there was a field
> > > > > > >>      that would benefit from
> > > > > > >>      total immersion in the individual case, this is one.
> > > > > > >>      But Shneidman says
> > > > > > >>      that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal
> > > > > > >>      phrases, and as a
> > > > > > >>      consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively
> > > > > > >>      (one of his first
> > > > > > >>      studies was simply to sort a pile of real and
> > > > > > >>      imitation suicide notes and
> > > > > > >>      carefully note the criteria he had when he made
> > > > > > >>      correct judgements). And of
> > > > > > >>      course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide
> > > > > > >>      is that the individual
> > > > > > >>      case can be utterly disregarded, since the great
> > > > > > >>      variations are
> > > > > > >>      sociological and the psychological variables all seem
> > > > > > >>      trivial, transient,
> > > > > > >>      or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a
> > > > > > >>      large scale (as we must
> > > > > > >>      these days). Shneidman says he has never read a
> > > > > > >>      suicide note he would want
> > > > > > >>      to have written.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>      David Kellogg
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>      On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden
> > > > > > >>      <ablunden@mira.net  <mailto:ablunden@mira.net> <mailto:
> > > > > > >> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>      > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks'
> > > > > > >>      style of Romantic
> > > > > > >>      > Science was his complete immersion in the individual
> > > > > > >>      case before him, and
> > > > > > >>      > development of a science of complete persons. The
> > > > > > >>      paradigm of this type of
> > > > > > >>      > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative
> > > > > > >>      Science" I suppose. The
> > > > > > >>      > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each
> > > > > > >>      case, e.g. facial
> > > > > > >>      > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a
> > > > > > >>      "covering law" for just this
> > > > > > >>      > aspect.
> > > > > > >>      > Andy
> > > > > > >>      >
> > > > > > >>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > >>      > *Andy Blunden*
> > > > > > >>      > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> > > > > > >>       <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/> <
> > > > > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
> > > > > > >>      > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote:
> > > > > > >>      >
> > > > > > >>      >> Mike,
> > > > > > >>      >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that
> > > > > > >>      naysayers were cited in
> > > > > > >>      >> reviewing Oliver Sacks’ life work. I am wondering
> > > > > > >>      if some of that push back
> > > > > > >>      >> was related to his practice of romantic science,
> > > > > > >>      which, if I understand
> > > > > > >>      >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in
> > > > > > >>      the phenomena of
> > > > > > >>      >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe,
> > > > > > >>      for example, immersed
> > > > > > >>      >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His
> > > > > > >>      writing prefigures the cell
> > > > > > >>      >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of
> > > > > > >>      microscopes could not confirm
> > > > > > >>      >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner
> > > > > > >>      and Sacks makes me
> > > > > > >>      >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at
> > > > > > >>      issue. Different styles
> > > > > > >>      >> of research bring different construals. This may be
> > > > > > >>      the bane of
> > > > > > >>      >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really
> > > > > > >>      make Sacks less of a
> > > > > > >>      >> researcher and just a lowly clinician?
> > > > > > >>      >> Henry
> > > > > > >>      >>
> > > > > > >>      >>
> > > > > > >>      >>
> > > > > > >>      >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole
> > > > > > >>      <mcole@ucsd.edu  <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu> <mailto:
> > > > mcole@ucsd.edu
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>      >>>
> > > > > > >>      >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our
> > > > > > >>      connections with Luria and
> > > > > > >>      >>> the fact that we
> > > > > > >>      >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a
> > > > > > >>      romantic science. He was a
> > > > > > >>      >>> shy
> > > > > > >>      >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling,
> > > > > > >>      and the difference
> > > > > > >>      >>> between
> > > > > > >>      >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the
> > > > > > >>      interview with them that
> > > > > > >>      >>> someone
> > > > > > >>      >>> pirated on
> > > > > > >>      >>> to youtube.
> > > > > > >>      >>>
> > > > > > >>      >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me,
> > > > > > >>      engaging intellectually all
> > > > > > >>      >>> the while.
> > > > > > >>      >>>
> > > > > > >>      >>> mike
> > > > > > >>      >>>
> > > > > > >>      >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin
> > > > > > >>      <martinl@azscience.org  <mailto:martinl@azscience.org>
> > > > <mailto:
> > > > > > >> martinl@azscience.org>>
> > > > > > >>      >>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>      >>>
> > > > > > >>      >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the
> > > > > > >>      privilege of spending an
> > > > > > >>      >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting
> > > > > > >>      Jerry Bruner and Carol
> > > > > > >>      >>>> Feldman in NY.  I stood in for Sylvia who
> > > > > > >>      couldn't make the dinner - it
> > > > > > >>      >>>> was
> > > > > > >>      >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you
> > > > > > >>      ever hear from Bruner? I
> > > > > > >>      >>>> wonder if he's still active.
> > > > > > >>      >>>>
> > > > > > >>      >>>> Laura
> > > > > > >>      >>>>
> > > > > > >>      >>>>
> > > > > > >>      >>>> Sent from my iPad
> > > > > > >>      >>>>
> > > > > > >>      >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole
> > > > > > >>      <mcole@ucsd.edu  <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu> <mailto:
> > > > mcole@ucsd.edu
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>      >>>>
> > > > > > >>      >>>> Dear Colleagues ---
> > > > > > >>      >>>>
> > > > > > >>      >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news
> > > > > > >>      that Oliver Sacks has
> > > > > > >>      >>>> succumbed to cancer.
> > > > > > >>      >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed.
> > > > > > >>      >>>> mike
> > > > > > >>      >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > > > >>      >>>>
> > > > > > >>      >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM
> > > > > > >>      >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82;
> > > > > > >>      Neurologist and Author
> > > > > > >>      >>>> Explored the Brain’s Quirks
> > > > > > >>      >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com  <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>
> > > > > <mailto:
> > > > > > >> lchcmike@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >>      >>>>
> > > > > > >>      >>>>
> > > > > > >>      >>>>   Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com
> > > > > > >>       <mailto:sashacole510@gmail.com> <mailto:
> > > > sashacole510@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > >> Oliver Sacks Dies at
> > > > > > >>      82; Neurologist
> > > > > > >>      >>>> and Author Explored the Brain’s Quirks
> > > > > > >>      >>>> <
> > > > > > >>      >>>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4
> > > > > > >> a <
> > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4
> > > > > > >>
> > > >
> a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440
> > > > > > >> 972441657668&regi_id=0>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668&regi_id=0>
> > > > > > >>      >>>> By
> > > > > > >>      >>>> GREGORY COWLES
> > > > > > >>      >>>>
> > > > > > >>      >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain’s strangest
> > > > > > >>      pathways in
> > > > > > >>      >>>> best-selling
> > > > > > >>      >>>> case histories like “The Man Who Mistook His Wife
> > > > > > >>      for a Hat,” achieving
> > > > > > >>      >>>> a
> > > > > > >>      >>>> level of renown rare among scientists.
> > > > > > >>      >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser:
> > > > > > >>      http://nyti.ms/1LL040D
> > > > > > >>      >>>> <
> > > > > > >>      >>>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4
> > > > > > >> a <
> > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4
> > > > > > >>
> > > >
> a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440
> > > > > > >> 972441657668&regi_id=0>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668&regi_id=0>
> > > > > > >>      >>>> To
> > > > > > >>      >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times
> > > > > > >>      articles, subscribe today.
> > > > > > >>      >>>> See
> > > > > > >>      >>>> Subscription Options.
> > > > > > >>      >>>> <
> > > > > > >>      >>>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC
> > > > > > >>
> > > >
> IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP
> > > > > > >> AvEGfk=
> > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC
> > > > > > >>
> > > >
> IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP
> > > > > > >>
> > > >
> AvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_i
> > > > > > >> d=1440972441657668&regi_id=0>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668&regi_id=0>
> > > > > > >>      >>>> To
> > > > > > >>      >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add
> > > > > > >>      nytdirect@nytimes.com  <mailto:nytdirect@nytimes.com>
> > > <mailto:
> > > > > > >> nytdirect@nytimes.com>
> > > > > > >>      to your
> > > > > > >>      >>>> address book. Advertisement
> > > > > > >>      >>>>
> > > > > > >>      >>>> <
> > > > > > >>      >>>>
> > > > > > >>      http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto
> <
> > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secu
> > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > re.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn
> > > > > > >>
> > > >
> 1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=Mis
> > > > > > >>
> > > >
> tressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistr
> > > > > > >> essamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview>
> > > > > > >> &opzn&page=
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview
> > > > > > >>      >>>> >
> > > > > > >>      >>>> Copyright 2015
> > > > > > >>      >>>> <
> > > > > > >>      >>>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP
> > > > > > >> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==
> > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP
> > > > > > >>
> > > >
> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31
> > > > > > >>
> > > >
> 502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668&r
> > > > > > >> egi_id=0>
> > > > > > >> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcd
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [The entire original message is not included.]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Rafi Santo
> > > > > Project Lead
> > > > > Hive Research Lab
> > > > > hiveresearchlab.org
> > > > > A project of Indiana University and New York University
> > > > >
> > > > > Indiana University - Learning Sciences
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an
> > > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an
> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch




-- 

It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an
object that creates history. Ernst Boesch