[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] CHAT: Interdisciplinary or maybe TRANS-disciplinary?
- To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [xmca] CHAT: Interdisciplinary or maybe TRANS-disciplinary?
- From: Andy Blunden <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:39:06 +1000
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=2007001; d=ucsd.edu; c=simple; q=dns; b=CdRj9FMi5hmhUHa7qYm9CzlXPs+nCyLomXqeuFLgOiYByzavy+KSS3JAN5OhFZB02 xzx8souOlhLqNNsbdHFxA==
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-archive: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca.weber.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <email@example.com>
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
- User-agent: Thunderbird 220.127.116.11 (Windows/20080421)
Thanks for opening up this thread, Mike.
I suppose my reservation about 'transdisciplinary' was
mainly that it is (for me at least) a neolog. But I
understand your point now. But I still feel that a claim for
a concept which transcends disciplines, tends to suggest an
idea that is independent of specifc modes of
activity/enquiry. This cannot of course be the case.
I actually do think that different sciences need to be
stitched together two or three at a time, as every dialogue
throws up distinct problems. This would lead me to hang on
to the notion of 'interdisciplinary'.
Also, I am in agreement with anyone who resists the idea of
a 'single unit of analysis'. To me that is equivalent to
saying we only need one word. But I remain of the view that
a shared concept of activity would facilitate integration of
sciences. And you can share the idea of 'project' without
giving up the concept (unit of analysis) which may
constitute the foundation of a specific science.
I don't know. The common language is full of
transdisciplinary words and concepts and without them we
couldn't even talk to one another, which is after all what
Mike Cole wrote:
I think it is pretty widely stated that cultural historical activity theory
or socio-cultural historical practice theory or ..........
is what is ordinarily conceived of as an inter-disciplinary undertaking that
spans at least social sciences and humanities, with
some arts and evolutionary biology thrown in from time to time (and even,
gulp, some math).
Andy has been using the term interdisciplinary in trying to get us to think
of projects as a basic unit of analysis while some
resist the idea of *A SINGLE* unit of analysis that spans all concerns of
this ryzhomic enterprise.
And despite the talk of interdisciplinarity, we seem to be pretty heavily
centered in psychology and education, with only
some attention to work.
Might we need to think seriously about a TRANS-discipline where integration
across levels of time and syncrhonic variation
are included? Or must we always be piecemeal, able to cope with 2-3
dimensions/aspects of our problematic, but unable
to move to the integrative level that our own theories tell us we need?
Last thought/question of the evening.
xmca mailing list
Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy Blunden:
From Erythrós Press and Media <http://www.erythrospress.com/>.
xmca mailing list