Re: [xmca] CHAT: Interdisciplinary or maybe TRANS-disciplinary?

[Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Yes, I agree. The problem remains.
How do we organize such an undertaking? It has to be distributed AND
coordinated.
My only resources are my time and computer space where important documents
can be archived and indexed.
Suggestions clearly needed for more than pie in the sky speculation.
mike

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Anton Yasnitsky <the_yasya@yahoo.com>wrote:

>
> Mike,
>
> Not only the study of history (although I seem to be representing this
> strand and, arguably, should be advocating for systematic historical
> explorations), but chiefly it is the "hardware" guys--psychophysiologists,
> neuropsychologists, etc., as well as not so "hardware" yet medical
> specialists, e.g., psychiatrists, "defectologists"--who are really missing.
>
> Hopefully, sooner or later we'll be able to get more such "body-related"
> professionals on board.
>
> Anton.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> To: ablunden@mira.net; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 11:34:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [xmca] CHAT: Interdisciplinary or maybe TRANS-disciplinary?
>
> Andy
>
> Trans does not imply transCENDENCE. It implies, in my dialect of English,
> synthesis, systematicity, and the search for coherence.
> Among other things, it implies that we need serious involvement of scholars
> from a number of disciplines who are poorly represented
> among us at present, but whose expertise (in the study of history, for
> example) is essential to the very foundations of what we do.
> mike
>
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
> > 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 it's about!
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > 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.
> >> mike
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> xmca mailing list
> >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>
> >>
> > --
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/><
> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> > Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy Blunden:
> > From Erythrós Press and Media <http://www.erythrospress.com/>.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>
>       __________________________________________________________________
> Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet
> Explorer® 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at
> http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca