Hi everyone
As I understand Thibault: in the theory of scalar hierarchies, each level (L) contains unique processes and forms. The levels are then organized so that the they provide a system of mutual constraints - a higher level (L+1) provides constraints (boundary conditions) to the focal levele(L); while an immediate lower level (L-1) provides constituents for the focal level L.
OK - logically I have no problem with this.
What I want to know is do we have to suppose that social processes are of a higher level order to the level of individual higher mental processes?
Likewise, why do we have to suppose that individual mental processing belongs to a higher level than neurological processing??
Maybe these questions seem crazy, but SOCIAL may be also conceived as a basic process in the sense that even chemical processes are based on relationships and exchanges of particles and information, and that they are also highly regular and rule governed.
It seems to me that the traditional hierarchy is a part of a paradigm in which the procession of levels is:
from chemical
to organic
to the level of a cell
to a cell collony
to more and more complex organisms
to individuals
finally to a society.
The forms and processes on each level are unique and probably non transitive, however, the hierarchy of levels seems based mainly on a physical size of the forms (microscopic to very large) and the spacial reach of the processes (very local to across space and time)
However, there are other bases for creating a hierarchy of levels. For me it makes more sense to say that the level of SOCIAL processes is a constituent of the individual mental processing, and that individual mental processing is CONSTRAINED by a level of its neurological structures and processes. The neurological strucutres of the brain are in turn created based on the individual mental functioning.
I think that a theory of socially mediated individual development must be based not on "ontogeny is a recapitulation of philogeny" by a different one altogether: "ontogeny is a zone of proximal development for the philogeny".
What do you think??
Ana
> ------------ Original Message -----------
> From: Bill Barowy <wbarowy@yahoo.com>
> Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 22:25:30 -0700 (PDT)
>
> Will do the requested reading before continuing then...
> bb
> --- Mike Cole <mcole@weber.ucsd.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Ana, Bill et al--
> >
> > I am really happy to talk about levles, but I do want to start
> > from scratch. I DO want to start from Thibault unless there is some
> > other text that takes up the issue . Its complicated and there
> > are varoius ways to go at it, but not bare handed when we have
> > so many textual tools, please.
> >
> > Question. Could we have ongotgeny with out phylogeny or vice versa for
> > humans (for whom i would add cultural history?) The issue is somewhat
> > different in PDP models. If development is a top-down AND bottom up
> > processes, how could it occur without...... say, 3 levels? Gone for the
> > day.
> > mike
> >
>
>
> =====
> "One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself
> and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful."
> [Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 01 2001 - 01:00:53 PDT